Slate Articleshttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch.fulltext.all.rss
Stories from SlateThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/06/the_hillary_deathwatch.html
<p>Hillary Clinton has finally <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin">announced that she will drop out</a>—but not till Saturday. Thus Clinton departs as she campaigned, dragging it out to the last possible moment. After more than <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">two months</a> of daily odds-making, we sink Clinton to her final resting place of <strong>0 percent</strong>. So it goes.</p>
<p>The last 36 hours felt like something out of the <em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders">DSM-IV</a></em>. Faced with defeat Tuesday night, Clinton gave a defiant speech with no recognition that Obama had locked up the nomination. Fans <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/04/in-the-clinton-bunker.aspx">encouraged her to fight on</a>. Late Tuesday, Clinton staffers were still spinning against the wind. Hillaryland went from professional campaign operation to alternate reality in which conventions are contested, skeletons emerge from closets, and superdelegates experience group epiphanies based on vague electability arguments. </p>
<p>But after Clinton held a conference call with top supporters Wednesday afternoon, things wrapped up quickly. That evening, Clinton announced she would &quot;express her support for Barack Obama and party unity&quot; this weekend. John McCain <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/McCain_calls_to_congratulate_Obama.html">called</a> Obama to congratulate him. The spin machine rested.</p>
<p>&quot;What does Hillary want?&quot; speculation still persists, even after Clinton addressed the question in her speech on Tuesday. Guesses include a vice-presidential slot, campaign-debt relief, and respect for her historic achievement. (It's unclear what this last one means. Is Obama supposed to throw her a party?) Our guess, for what it's worth: She wants to be able to say what Al Gore says—that she won the popular vote and deserved the nomination as much as Obama did. Many Americans wonder what the country would be like if Gore had won. If Obama loses in November, they'll think, what if Hillary had won? Not a bad setup for 2012. </p>
<p>Expect to hear lots about unity in the coming weeks. But Clinton's handling of the past two days has all but closed off the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket. And that's just one of the 78 reasons Clinton won't be veep. Obama could never run as anti-Washington yet pick the personification thereof as his second. Clinton would never be able to cede the spotlight, as VPs must. And Bill's presidential library would pose its own set of headaches, the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121262109484746703-lMyQjAxMDI4MTAyNTYwMjUxWj.html">reports</a> today. If there were a Hillary Veepwatch, it would be hovering around 0 percent, too. </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to <u><a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a>.</u></em></strong></p>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:20:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/06/the_hillary_deathwatch.htmlChristopher Beam2008-06-05T16:20:00ZClinton sinks beneath the waves.News and PoliticsClinton sinks beneath the waves.2193035Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2193035falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/06/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.html
<p>Campaigning yesterday in Milbank, S.D., Bill Clinton effectively <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/02/1096272.aspx">declared the race over</a>, saying, &quot;[T]his may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind.&quot; Clinton's advance team was told its work was done. Her schedule remains empty after Tuesday night. Even if she doesn't bid farewell tonight, Clinton and everyone around her know her chances are a near-nothing of <strong>0.1 percent</strong>. (It would be zero, but she <em>still hasn't dropped out</em>.) She is asymptotically dead.</p>
<p>So today is less about <em>what</em> than <em>how</em>. <em>How</em> Obama is going to roll out the necessary delegates to reach the &quot;magic number&quot; of 2,118. <em>How</em> (and when) Clinton is officially going to concede. <em>How</em> she is going to transition into the &quot;healing&quot; phase of the general election.</p>
<p>Still, the day's news has been an ongoing game of &quot;will she or won't she?&quot; This morning, the Associated Press reported that Clinton campaign officials said she would concede Tuesday night that Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. The Clinton camp quickly <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Wolfson_denies_AP_report.html">denied</a> the report. (Disagreement in Hillaryland? Never!) So the AP took a different tack, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912O5FG0&amp;show_article=1">declaring</a> the race over based on a tally of public commitments and &quot;more than a dozen private commitments.&quot; But seeing as the superdelegate metric has always been about <em>public</em> commitments, it's unclear why that's news.</p>
<p>Talk of a superdelegate &quot;flood&quot; has bubbled up before just about every primary, but today's surge looks like the real deal. Obama continues to <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/03/tuesdays-super-battle/">trot out superdelegates</a> after reports that he spent Monday <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/us/politics/03campaign.html?_r=1&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin">lining up endorsements</a>. Debbie Dingell of Michigan and South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn declared their support today, Jimmy Carter is <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912P9Q00&amp;show_article=1">endorsing Obama tonight</a>, and proverbial fat lady Nancy Pelosi is expected to sing soon after. That makes 10 supers (and counting) for the day, putting Obama 30.5 delegates away from the nomination. If Obama snaps up half of Montana's and South Dakota's combined 31 pledged delegates today, he'll need only&nbsp;another 15 or so endorsements to give him the nomination.</p>
<p>Of course, there's a difference between winning the majority of delegates and winning the nomination—<a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1811421,00.html">according to Clinton</a>, at least. Tonight, Clinton is expected to acknowledge Obama's delegate win but stop short of suspending her campaign. That might sound like a distinction without a difference, but Clinton has said she &quot;reserves the right&quot; to challenge the DNC's Michigan decision in front of the Credentials Committee in June. No words make Howard Dean quake in fear quite like &quot;brokered convention.&quot; But it's hard to imagine that scenario playing out when Democrats, the media, and even John McCain have united to declare Barack Obama the Democratic nominee.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:12:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/06/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.htmlChristopher Beam2008-06-03T20:12:00ZThe long-awaited superdelegate flood sinks Clinton down to the waterline.News and PoliticsThe long-awaited superdelegate flood sinks Clinton down to the waterline.2192823Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2192823falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/06/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.html
<p>The more things change, the more they stay the same. Hillary Clinton scored a win and a loss this weekend. She claimed a 2-to-1 victory in Puerto Rico on Sunday but netted only 24 delegates from Florida and Michigan in the decision passed down by the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee. Yet neither of these events changes the landscape of the race. Obama remains fewer than 45 delegates away from the new magic number of 2,118, which keeps Clinton's chances at a near-conclusive <strong>0.4 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Clinton <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060102238_pf.html">won</a> the Puerto Rico primary in just about every possible way. Women and men, young and old, rich and poor, educated and unschooled—all favored Clinton. (The only demographic that favored Obama was people who sympathized with indicted Gov. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An&Atilde;&shy;bal_Salvador_Acevedo_Vil&Atilde;&iexcl;">Anibal Acevedo Vila</a>, who endorsed Obama.) An early estimate showed Clinton winning 35 delegates to Obama's 15, with five still unaccounted for. The Clinton campaign is spinning the results to suggest Obama has a &quot;<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/McAuliffe_Obama_has_Latino_problem.html">problem</a>&quot; attracting Hispanics. </p>
<p>But on Saturday, Clinton had problems of her own. The much-anticipated RBC meeting contained little suspense but much recrimination, as Clinton supporters <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/31/so-much-for-healing.aspx">denounced</a> the committee's decision to split Michigan 69-59 and Florida 105-67, with each delegate given half a vote. All in all, she netted <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1091679.aspx">24 delegates</a>. Clinton said she &quot;reserved the right&quot; to challenge the decision before the Credentials Committee in late June but said she hadn't yet decided what to do. </p>
<p>The weekend's events helped Clinton close Obama's delegate lead but not enough to alter the eventual outcome. He still needs about the same number of delegates to win the nomination as he needed Friday. Clinton needs 203. It's as tight as a Democratic race has ever gotten—but not tight enough for Tuesday's contests, with a combined total of 31 pledged delegates, to make a difference. (The <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-SD-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">few</a> <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-MT-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">data points</a> we have show Obama leading in both Montana and South Dakota.) </p>
<p>So, the Clinton campaign is embracing the one metric that, narrowly defined, favors Hillary: the <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html">popular vote</a>. The Puerto Rico primary netted Clinton 141,000 votes, putting her ahead of Obama in the overall tally. But that's only if you count the votes from Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot. (She's still winning if you give Obama Michigan's &quot;uncommitted&quot; votes, but <em>then </em>only if you don't count a handful of caucus states.) The Clinton camp released a new ad touting the &quot;17 million&quot; people who voted for Clinton, bragging that it's more than voted for any other primary candidate ever. Naturally, they skip the fine print.</p>
<p>In the superdelegate race, Obama netted two delegates on Sunday, plus another two Monday morning; Clinton got zero. Even if they split the delegates from Tuesday's contests 50/50, Obama will need fewer than 30 supers to seal the deal. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Obama <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10724.html">announced</a> late Saturday that he was leaving his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, after weathering months of criticism for his associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He cited &quot;a cultural and a stylistic gap&quot; between himself and the church. Obama severed ties with Wright in April after Wright reiterated several of his most inflammatory comments. This move suggests the Obama camp sees not just Wright but Trinity itself as a liability in the general election. However painful, it may be the right decision for Obama; and he can thank the long primary for forcing him to do it now rather than in October. </p>
<p>Clinton will reportedly be <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_camp_converging_on_New_York_Tuesday_and_shedding_staff.html">holding</a> &nbsp;her Tuesday night&nbsp;&quot;celebration&quot; in New York City. Conclude what you will. </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:04:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/06/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.htmlChristopher Beam2008-06-02T15:04:00ZA huge Puerto Rico win fails to postpone the inevitable.News and PoliticsA huge Puerto Rico win fails to postpone the inevitable.2192691Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2192691falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch.html
<p>The high-stakes drama of Saturday's rules committee meeting appears illusory. Meanwhile, Obama rakes in more superdelegates, putting him 40.5 away from the nomination. According to our formula, that sinks Clinton to <strong>0.4 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>T minus one day and counting to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. Can you feel the suspense? Clinton supporters are <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1810466,00.html">busing up</a> from Florida. Obama fans are being encouraged to stay home. <em>Tout le m</em><em>&eacute;dia</em> will hang on Howard Dean's every word, as well as those uttered by the Obama and Clinton campaign surrogates sent to argue their cases. </p>
<p>But the drama is largely phony. DNC lawyers have said that seating any more than half of the Michigan and Florida delegations <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/28/can-the-rbc-reinstate-all-of-florida-s-delegates.aspx">would violate party rules</a>. The proposed solutions are <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/30/1083672.aspx">well-known</a>. And every <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/29/1077410.aspx">likely compromise</a> fails to put Clinton within range of catching Obama, who now leads by 200 delegates. </p>
<p>But the Clinton camp is still pushing for full seating. &quot;We are hopeful and confident that after hearing all the arguments and hearing all the facts ... that all the delegates will be seated and all of them will have a full vote,&quot; Harold Ickes said on a conference call today. What about the ruling by the DNC lawyers? Senior adviser Tina Flournoy remains undeterred: &quot;We continue in the face of overwhelming odds to believe in the better judgment of our colleagues on the rules and bylaws committee.&quot;</p>
<p>But even Ickes isn't sure they can count on those colleagues. Clinton has 13 supporters on the 28-member committee, but Ickes doesn't necessarily expect all of them to vote her way, the Huffington Post <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/ickes-at-the-alamo-clinto_n_104228.html">reported</a>. On today's call, Ickes clarified that he meant the committee members are &quot;independent people.&quot; &quot;I don't want to say we have every person&quot; who supports Clinton supporting her plan, he said. </p>
<p>It's not all gloomy, though. Clinton could benefit from <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/30/what-was-michael-pfleger-thinking.aspx">revelations</a> that the Rev. Michael Pfelger, a Chicago priest who has known Obama for 20 years, made cruel remarks about Clinton in a sermon last week. But it might be too little too late. If Obama survived Wright, with whom he was close, he will likely survive Pfelger. (The campaign has condemned Pfelger's remarks, and the priest has apologized.) Still, it's yet another no-longer-closeted skeleton Obama will have to deal with in the general. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Obama <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D90VMT304.html">picks up</a> two Texas superdelegates today—state party Chairman Boyd Richie and his wife, Betty. That puts him 40.5 delegates away from the magic number of 2,026, but expect that number to change after Saturday's RBC meeting. <a>First </a> Read <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/30/1083672.aspx">games out</a> the scenarios and figures that Obama will emerge from Saturday about 60 delegates away from the nomination. <a href="http://www.slate.com#Correction">*</a> If that happens, watch Clinton's chances rise just in time for Puerto Rico on Sunday.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>
<p><em><strong> <a>Correction</a>, May 30, 2008: </strong>This article originally stated that the proposed RBC scenarios would put Obama ahead by 60&nbsp;pledged delegates. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Return">Return</a> &nbsp;to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>Fri, 30 May 2008 20:41:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-30T20:41:00ZNot even the RBC meeting can save Clinton now.News and PoliticsNot even the RBC meeting can save Clinton now.2192373Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2192373falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.html
<p>As the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting looms, Hillary Clinton cranks her electability argument up to 11. But Obama continues to woo superdelegates. Odds of survival hover at <strong>0.5 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Clinton is&nbsp;now fighting tooth and nail to see that the DNC's rules committee seats the delegates from Florida and Michigan at the convention in August. She continues to push for full seating, but that scenario remains <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/28/can-the-rbc-reinstate-all-of-florida-s-delegates.aspx">extremely unlikely</a>. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggests they're willing to compromise. The reason: They can afford to. Even the best-case scenarios don't have Clinton closing Obama's 195-delegate lead. </p>
<p>So Clinton is pushing her &quot;popular vote&quot; argument harder than ever. In a <a href="http://thepage.time.com/clintons-letter-to-superdelegates/">letter</a> to superdelegates today, she wrote that &quot;when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries.&quot; The popular vote is <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/21/how-to-legitimize-the-popular-vote.aspx">within reach</a>, assuming huge turnout in Puerto Rico. (Her claim that she's <em>currently</em> winning it is disingenuous, though, since that count includes Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot.) The pledged-delegate count—or whatever she means by &quot;delegates earned through primaries&quot;—not so much. </p>
<p>Clinton also argues she isn't hurting the party by staying in the race; she's helping it. &quot;I believe that if Senator Obama and I both make our case—and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard—everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee,&quot; she writes.</p>
<p>But the crux of her argument is that she <em>will</em> win in the general, as opposed to Obama, who merely <em>can</em> win. Propping up her case today was a Gallup survey showing that Clinton <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx">outperforms</a> Obama against John McCain in states whose primaries she won. In states Obama won, Clinton and Obama perform about the same against McCain. The poll bolsters her argument that her primary victories have some bearing on her strength in the general election (although polls in May have little bearing on the outcome in November). That her victories include swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania gives her a solid talking point. </p>
<p>Still, Obama <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/28/saturdays-super-battle-3/">picks up</a> three more superdelegates today. The campaign says it's now 46 delegates away from securing the nomination.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Wed, 28 May 2008 22:16:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-28T22:16:00ZClinton cranks the electability argument up to 11.News and PoliticsHillary Clinton cranks the electability argument up to 11.2192271Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2192271falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.html
<p>Hillary Clinton's ill-advised&nbsp;invoking of RFK's assassination might have damaged her campaign if there were anything left to damage. Meanwhile, Obama closes in on the current magic number of 2,026, bringing Clinton's odds of winning the nomination to <strong>0.5 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>On the list of campaign no-nos, hinting at the possibility of your opponent being shot is up there. Yet that's what some people thought Hillary meant when she told the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, S.D.,&nbsp;<em>Argus-Leader </em>that Democratic nominations often extend into June: &quot;My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it.&quot; </p>
<p>The <em>New York Post</em> led the way, <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008/news/nationalnews/why_hill_wont_drop_out__bobby_kennedy_wa_112232.htm">blaring</a>, &quot;Hillary Raises Assassination Issue.&quot; Drudge quickly followed. The<em> Washington Post</em> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052303158.html?nav=rss_politics/congress">fronted the story</a>, albeit less sensationally. But little consideration was given to what Clinton meant. (Watch the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtMbeq5gwHw">video</a> and draw your own conclusions.) Never mind that she had <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900,00.html">said the same thing</a> to <em>Time</em> back in March and no one noticed. Never mind that her calendar argument is <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/26/clintons-calendar-miscalculation/">misleading</a> in the first place: Her husband may not have mathematically secured the nomination until June, but he was the presumptive nominee in March; RFK was still campaigning in June because the primary calendar started so late. The focus was on the &quot;assassination&quot; comparison. &quot;We &nbsp;have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul,&quot; <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/05/24/2008-05-24_hillary_clintons_colossal_blunder_simply-2.html">opined</a> the <em>Daily News</em>' Michael Goodwin. That or a very click-hungry media.</p>
<p>Luckily for Clinton, the &quot;news&quot; broke late Friday and appears to have run its course. The downside: She's nowhere to be found in <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/27/1066389.aspx">today's top stories</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the delegate count is the closest thing Clinton has to a <a href="http://www.deathclock.com/">death clock</a>. Obama picked up six more superdelegates over the weekend, mostly add-ons from state conventions. Clinton got one. Today Obama nabs a Wyoming super, bringing his total count to 1,975.5, according to NBC, or 50.5 delegates away from the 2,026 needed to win the nomination. (Hence the 0.5 percent, according to our new formula.) But that magic number is likely to shift after this weekend, when the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee decides whether—or, more likely, how—to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. If the outcome heavily favors Clinton (as <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10614.html">this proposal</a> would), it could turn Puerto Rico into Clinton's Last Stand.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Tue, 27 May 2008 17:54:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-27T17:54:00ZClinton's RFK comment won't do lasting damage because there's not much left to damage.News and PoliticsClinton's RFK comment won't do lasting damage because there's not much left to damage.2191998Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191998falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_4.html
<p>Clinton steps up calls for Florida and Michigan to be seated. But those delegations won't make up the difference. Her chances remain stagnant at <strong>0.7 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>On May 31, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee will convene in Washington, D.C., to decide whether and how to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan. There is a number of possible outcomes, but the most likely one is that both states get seated but have their delegations chopped in half. (Figuratively, of course—the DNC is harsh, but not that harsh.) Depending on how they treat superdelegates, this scenario would <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/21/1047416.aspx">change the &quot;magic number&quot; from 2,026 to either 2,131 or 2,118</a>. </p>
<p>But that alone <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble">isn't going to save Clinton</a>. Even if both delegations were seated in full according to their January votes, with Obama receiving zero delegates in Michigan, Clinton would gain 111 delegates—not enough to close Obama's current 178-delegate lead. A much more likely scenario, in which Florida's delegation would be halved and Michigan gets split in a proposed 69-59 compromise, would net Clinton only about 30 delegates. </p>
<p>That's why Clinton's candidacy rests on her other arguments: that she's ahead in the popular vote (a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/21/fun-with-popular-vote-numbers.aspx">stretch</a>, at best), that she won key swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and Florida, and that she runs better against John McCain than Obama does in rural areas. </p>
<p>The problem is, superdelegates <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/05/paterson-sees-desperation-by-c.html">aren't buying it</a>. New York Gov. and Clinton supporter David Paterson said her argument that she's winning the popular vote has a whiff of &quot;desperation.&quot; And the superdelegate split since Tuesday's contests has been two for Clinton, two for Obama. (See details <a href="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/superdelegate-endorsements-for_21.html">here</a> and <a href="http://thepage.time.com/clinton-release-on-guam-superdelegate-add/">here</a>.) As First Read <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/21/1047416.aspx">pointed out</a> yesterday, even if Florida and Michigan get seated, Obama will need about 50 more superdelegate endorsements to make a Clinton win impossible, whereas Clinton will still need a lot more than that. </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches,</em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Thu, 22 May 2008 21:11:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_4.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-22T21:11:00ZClinton steps up calls for Florida and Michigan to be seated.News and PoliticsClinton steps up calls for Florida and Michigan to be seated.2191981Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191981falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_5.html
<p>With Tuesday's contests in Kentucky and Oregon, Barack Obama seizes a majority of pledged delegates. April fundraising numbers show Obama still leads in the money race. And key figures ditch Hillary. Obama now needs about 70 delegates to attain the &quot;magic number&quot; of 2025, so we're dropping Clinton's chances 0.9 points to <strong>0.7 percent</strong>. For every 10 delegates Obama wins, Clinton will drop another 0.1 until … let's just say she'll need a snorkel. </p>
<p>Obama did not declare victory Tuesday night, but he came about as close as one can get. &quot;You have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States,&quot; he told a Des Moines, Iowa, crowd. He needed only 17 pledged delegates to secure a majority. In Kentucky, it looks like he won about 14; in Oregon, about 30. </p>
<p>Plus, winning the majority of pledged delegates comes with a bonus: superdelegates. DemConWatch <a href="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/superdelegates-pledging-to-back.html">keeps track of members</a> of the so-called &quot;Pelosi Club&quot;—superdelegates who have said they would support the winner of the pledged delegate count. If they keep their word and vote for Obama, he'll gain seven supers, including Madame Speaker, and Clinton will lose one. </p>
<p>The question now is, how long will it take Barack Obama to win the remaining 70 delegates? Superdelegates could decide to endorse him <em>en masse</em> Wednesday. But chances are they'll wait for the contests to finish. The remaining primaries hold a total of <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html">86 pledged delegates</a>. Even if Obama gets only half of those, he'll need only about one-quarter of the 179 remaining uncommitted superdelegates to hit 2,025. </p>
<p>Both campaigns announced their April fundraising hauls Tuesday night. Clinton raked in an impressive $22 million—people really are going to HillaryClinton.com, aren't they?—but Obama topped it with $31.3 million. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, key figures continue to abandon Clinton. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia,&nbsp;who took Clinton under his wing when she joined the Senate (after leading the charge against her health care plan in the '90s, of course), <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/sen-robert-byrd.html">endorsed</a> Obama yesterday. Another loyalist, former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman, reportedly <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121121426734803879.html?mod=hps_us_pageone">urged</a> Clinton to drop out.</p>
<p><strong><em></em></strong></p>
<p>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 21 May 2008 05:06:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_5.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-21T05:06:00ZNews and PoliticsThe Hillary Deathwatch2191796Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191796falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_6.html
<p>Obama won't declare victory after Tuesday, but only because the media will do it for him. Clinton's chances sag another 0.1 point to <strong>1.6 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>Despite reports that Barack Obama would declare victory after May 20, when he's expected to secure a majority of pledged delegates, he's now <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10438.html">expected to keep mum</a>. The reason: Better to let Clinton exit with dignity than to appear to be forcing her out of the race. This logic reflects the Obama camp's supreme confidence that the nomination is in the bag. </p>
<p>Media outlets seem to agree. Just look at today's top <em>New York Times</em> headlines. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19donate.html?hp">&quot;McCain To Rely on Party Money Against Obama&quot;</a> doesn't even pretend not to know who the nominee will be. Another piece <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19women.html?hp">examines</a> what a Clinton loss means for women: It's either &quot;a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high office in the first place.&quot; Look for more postmortems after Tuesday's race, barring a Clinton sweep. </p>
<p>But right now, a dramatic outcome looks unlikely. New polls out of Kentucky and Oregon predict a Clinton rout and an Obama win, respectively. <a href="http://www.suffolk.edu/28874.html">Suffolk University has</a> Clinton leading in Kentucky with 51 percent to Obama's 25 percent—not as devastating her 41-point West Virginia thumping, but still respectable. Obama leads in Oregon, 45 percent to 41 percent—tight enough to make Obama supporters squirm, given the poll's four-point margin of error, but not to predict a Clinton upset.</p>
<p>As if to rub in the &quot;presumptive nominee&quot; story, Obama held the largest rally of the campaign on Sunday, with <a href="http://thepage.time.com/photos-obamas-portland-rally-with-record-breaking-crowd/">75,000 people</a> cramming onto Portland's waterfront. (Although we'd guess a good chunk of them were there to <a href="http://www.nme.com/news/the-decemberists/36680">see the beloved Portland band The Decemberists</a>.) </p>
<p>Superdelegates, meanwhile, still trend in Obama's direction. Obama nabbed six over the weekend to Clinton's three. But five of them are California add-ons, which don't exactly count as endorsements, since they were allocated roughly according to the state's vote. </p>
<p>To reiterate—it's helpful to do this every week or so—Clinton's path looks something like this: Win huge in the remaining states (a massive margin in Kentucky and an upset in Oregon), close Obama's <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html">700,000-vote lead</a> in the popular tally (without counting Florida and Michigan), and marshal these numbers to persuade superdelegates of Obama's unelectability. Piece of cake.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Mon, 19 May 2008 18:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_6.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-19T18:30:00ZObama won't declare victory on Tuesday, but the media will.News and PoliticsObama won't declare victory on Tuesday, but the media will.2191697Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191697falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_7.html
<p>The John Edwards endorsement spawns imitators, and Republicans set their sights on Obama. Clinton's chances wane another 0.1 points to <strong>1.7 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Obama nabbed a slew of endorsements yesterday on the heels of&nbsp;Edwards' announcement, including California duo Reps. Henry Waxman and&nbsp;Howard Berman. Waxman's backing doesn't carry the weight of a Pelosi or a Reid, but as chair of the House oversight committee, he's considered one of the most powerful congressmen around. (His may be the <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/buy/henry+waxman/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_22716154/opt_/fpt_/c_666/">most feared mustache</a> in Washington.) Berman chairs the chamber's foreign-affairs committee, lending Obama another bit of global-policy cred. Today, fellow California Rep. Pete Stark <a href="http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-rep-stark-endorsement/">followed suit</a>. That puts Obama 127.5 delegates away from the nomination (or 121.5 if you count seven pledged delegates who previously supported Edwards). </p>
<p>Meanwhile, President Bush's veiled shot at Obama yesterday may be the best thing to happen to the senator since Iowa. Obama took immediate umbrage and fired back with a &quot;<a href="http://thepage.time.com/video-obama-aide-previews-his-bush-response/">vigorous response</a>&quot; to Bush's &quot;outrageous&quot; accusation. That Bush even deigned to reference Obama—although the White House denies he was talking about the senator—is itself a sort of coronation. And other Republicans are following suit. Today Mitch McConnell <a href="http://thepage.time.com/sen-mcconnells-remarks-to-the-nra/">slammed</a> both Democratic candidates in a speech to the NRA but reserved special words for Obama's &quot;bitter&quot; comments. </p>
<p>Oh, almost forgot: next week's primaries. The most recent <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-KY-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">Kentucky poll</a> confirms that Obama's in for a thumping there, while he <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-OR-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">maintains</a> a single-digit lead in Oregon. He'll likely declare victory no matter what, since he's only 16 pledged delegates away from snagging a pledged-delegate majority. (NBC <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/16/1031452.aspx">puts him</a> at 1,601 right now out of 3,254 total.) But as the Clinton camp will point out, it all depends on what your definition of <em>victory</em> is. Is the magic number 2,025 or 2,210? Does the popular vote trump pledged delegates? Are caucus states <em>really</em> states at all? Stay tuned!</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Fri, 16 May 2008 19:29:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_7.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-16T19:29:00ZA slew of California endorsements brings Obama closer to the magic number.News and PoliticsA slew of California endorsements brings Obama closer to the magic number.2191490Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191490falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_8.html
<p>Endorsements from formerly coy John Edwards and the United Steelworkers for Obama are two more nails in the Clinton coffin. Clinton's odds drop 1.1 to <strong>1.8 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Whatever momentum Clinton picked up from her 41-point <a href="http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/WV.html">West Virginia win</a> the Obama camp snuffed out with the Edwards coup de gr&acirc;ce. Edwards sat on his endorsement until long after its game-changing power expired, so the damage to Clinton's flicker of a campaign is more symbolic than anything. The crux of his &quot;everyone's doing it&quot; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051404014.html">speech last night in Michigan</a> was that he was mimicking the will of the voters. Because he waited, Edwards' decision to finally choose a horse reinforces the &quot;it's over&quot; story line. Watch this narrative get another boost next week when Obama clinches the pledged delegate lead for good. (He'll hit a majority of the 3,254 pledged delegates even if he narrowly loses Oregon.)</p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly, Edwards <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXKZM_gYgkbb63fVIw6Rlx8VVJIAD90M48R82">hands Obama the steelworkers</a>. The Pennsylvania primary may have come and gone, but this 600,000-strong union of iconic blue-collar workers should help assuage fears that Obama simply can't attract any support in this demographic—although Kentucky's primary will be the real test.</p>
<p>The last bit of election news today comes courtesy of George W. Bush. In an address to the Irsaeli parliament today, he took a swipe at those who would meet and talk with &quot;terrorists and radicals,&quot; which many people took as a pot shot at Obama. (<a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/24/candidates_in_chief.html">Clinton tweaked Obama on the same issue</a> at a debate last summer.)</p>
<p>Multiple choice time. Does this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a)&nbsp;Benefit Obama, showing that he is part of the foreign-policy establishment and at odds with a historically unpopular president? </p>
<p>b)&nbsp;Hurt Obama by making voters queasy about putting this largely untested candidate at the helm? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>For now, possibly for the sake of keeping Clinton in positive figures, we're going to split the difference between a) and b) and call it a wash.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Thu, 15 May 2008 19:57:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_8.htmlChris Wilson2008-05-15T19:57:00ZJohn Edwards' nod is mostly symbolic, but symbolism matters.News and PoliticsJohn Edwards' nod is mostly symbolic, but symbolism matters.2191489Chris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191489falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_9.html
<p>The past 24 hours have been a combination of sky highs and brutal lows for Hillary Clinton. She won by double digits in West Virginia—one of her biggest victories yet (<strong>Update 9:31 a.m., May 14:</strong> The final tally is&nbsp;67 percent to 26 percent). But a superdelegate shutout (Obama won four today to her zero) and a crippling campaign debt suggest the victory will be short-lived. We'll bump her up 1.3 points to <strong>2.9 percent</strong>, if only because tonight's victory all but guarantees she'll stick around a few more weeks. </p>
<p>First, the good news: Clinton's West Virginia victory gives her what she most desperately needs—<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/13/how-west-virginia-can-help-clinton.aspx">arguments</a>. Her win, while expected, managed to suck away much of Obama's normal coalition (minus blacks, who made up 4 percent of the electorate). She can say Obama is weakening, that he's vulnerable in the general, and that voters want her to stick it out. Not even a landslide victory would earn Clinton enough pledged delegates to challenge Obama's tally, and Obama's <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html">popular-vote lead</a> remains daunting. But she now has an excuse to stay in. In the words of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Clinton is now an &quot;understudy candidate,&quot; waiting in the wings to see if Obama catches the flu. </p>
<p>The problem is, he's still looking healthy. Obama picked up four superdelegates today, including New Orleans Mayor and walking Katrina symbol <a href="http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-nagin-endorsement/">Ray Nagin</a>. Obama now <a href="http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/">leads by about 13 supers</a>. He also won over <em> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554.html">pledged delegate Jack Johnson</a></em>, a Prince George's County, Md., executive whose district went for Clinton. (Remember, it's Clinton who <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/hillary-clinton-pledged-_n_90697.html">has argued</a> that pledged delegates aren't bound.) While Johnson doesn't have the high profile of Clinton defectors <a href="http://www.salon.com/src/pass/sitepass/spon/sitepass_website.html">John Lewis</a> and <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/01/joe_andrew_jumps_from_clinton.html">Joe Andrew</a>, the fact that he's flouting party practice to support Obama suggests that if the tide is turning, it's not toward Clinton. </p>
<p>The money front: also bleak. Over the weekend, Clinton's campaign confirmed that she's looking at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051101865_pf.html">$20 million in campaign debt</a>. In her victory speech, Clinton again encouraged viewers to visit HillaryClinton.com, and not for the policy positions. A similar plea <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/04/hillary_clintons_pennsylvania.html">worked after her Pennsylvania win</a> but less so after Indiana. Tomorrow's haul will indicate just how costly it will be to stay in the race through June. Meanwhile, rumors are circulating that Obama will announce his April fundraising tomorrow. If both campaigns release numbers, the news will be whichever is bigger. </p>
<p>In her speech tonight, Clinton said she's not going anywhere. And it's becoming clear why. For her, it's not about money. It's not about delegates. It's not even necessarily about thinking she can win. &quot;I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate,&quot; she said. It may be that simple. To drop out now would be to abandon all the voters who agree with her. She owes it to them and to herself to see this through. In her speech, she told a story about Florence Steen, an 88-year-old woman who stayed alive just long enough to vote for a woman and then died. If there's a better metaphor for her candidacy—other than <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/03/kentucky-derby-horse-eigh_n_99987.html">Eight Belles</a>, of course—I haven't heard it. </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 14 May 2008 02:19:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_9.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-14T02:19:00ZClinton wins West Virginia, but the numbers remain bleak.News and PoliticsClinton wins West Virginia, but the numbers remain bleak.2191300Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191300falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_10.html
<p>Clinton&nbsp;is poised to sweep West Virginia, but Obama has finally surged ahead in the most important contest of all: superdelegates. Dock Clinton half a point to <strong>1.6 percent</strong>. </p>
<p> <a>We've </a> believed for some time that the day Obama overtakes Clinton in the superdelegate count <a href="http://www.slate.com#correction">*</a> is the day Clinton throws in the towel. But Friday was that day, and the towel is still there, mopping up the Clinton campaign's blood, sweat, and tears by the bucketful. According to the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement">Associated Press' count</a>, Obama now has 277 supers to Clinton's 271. It was the last metric in which Clinton was leading, and Obama's momentum isn't slowing any: Over the weekend, he got&nbsp;seven supers to Clinton's one. Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe still <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/12/campaign.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview">claims</a> she's within &quot;striking distance&quot; of the popular vote. But that's only if you count Florida, Michigan, and now Puerto Rico, which doesn't vote in the general election. </p>
<p>Clinton's chances in West Virginia, meanwhile, look good. Insanely good. A <em>Lexington Herald-Leader </em>poll puts her at 58 percent to Obama's 31 percent. A landslide victory there will remind people of Obama's weakness with working-class whites and remind the doomsayers that Clinton is still kicking. But the demographic split is nothing we didn't know before, and Clinton's fighting spirit has <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/09/clintons_future_depends_on_graceful_exit/">started to worry</a> some supporters. Plus, her staying in the race has a silver lining for Obama: It spares him the embarrassment of losing to her even after she dropped out. Even McCain has managed to beat his former competitors after they bowed out.</p>
<p>Right now, the question is no longer who has won the Democratic nomination. It's <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10262.html">how the loser chooses to exit</a>. As cops like to say, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Depending on which way Clinton wants to go, West Virginia, which votes tomorrow, could mean one of two things. Either Clinton seizes on it as an excuse to stay in the race and compete with Obama in Kentucky and Oregon and Montana and Puerto Rico until she has to be <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-eight-belles-080504-ht,0,6283376.story">euthanized on the track</a>. Or she goes out on a high note. The latter option is looking more and more attractive as it becomes clear that the longer she bruises Obama, the more she'll have to atone for it in the general.</p>
<p><em><strong> <a>Correction</a>, May 12, 2008</strong>: This article orginally referred to Obama's overtaking Clinton in the pledged-delegate count. The reference should have been to his overtaking her in the superdelegate count. (</em> <a href="http://www.slate.com#return"><em>Return</em></a><em> to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches,</em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Mon, 12 May 2008 17:02:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_10.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-12T17:02:00ZObama takes the lead in the superdelegate race.News and PoliticsObama takes the lead in the superdelegate race.2191194Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2191194falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_11.html
<p>Superdelegates continue to trickle in for Barack Obama, and John Edwards says Clinton probably can't win. Polls continue to favor Clinton heavily in the next two primaries. But observers increasingly wonder, what's the point? Lacking inertia, Clinton dips two-tenths of a point to <strong>2.1 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Ever since Obama gained a solid lead in pledged delegates in the weeks after Super Tuesday, his supporters have leaked hints that he has won the private commitments of dozens of superdelegates, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9968.html">particularly in Congress</a>. Every Wednesday morning after a primary, the media would await news of a major shift in superdelegate migratory patterns. It never came.</p>
<p>Instead, it appears that the supers are content arriving in twos and threes by the day, providing a steady stream of small-font headlines. Today, Obama snared <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/09/new-jersey-super-switches-to-obama/">three new endorsements</a>, including one, <a href="http://www.house.gov/payne/">Rep. Donald Payne</a> of New Jersey, who defected from Clinton's column. Clinton <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20080509_ap_pacongressmanasuperdelegatebacksclinton.html">picked up the endorsement</a> of <a href="http://carney.house.gov/">Rep. Chris Carney</a> of Pennsylvania, for a net total of 3-0 in Obama's favor.</p>
<p>In an interview on the <em>Today</em> show, John Edwards was <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0947762520080509">generally complimentary of Obama</a> and optimistic about his odds of beating McCain in the fall, though he declined to actually endorse. Edwards' influence is diminished now that both Carolinas have voted, but he could still give Obama a bump in favorable media. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Clinton is on course <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-WV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">to crush Obama in West Virginia</a> this Tuesday. She's polling in the 50s and 60s to Obama's 20s. Her lead is <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-KY-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">similarly lopsided in Kentucky</a>, which votes a week later.</p>
<p>How her likely victories in these upcoming states will be received has a lot to do with whether the current trickle of superdelegates picks up. If one allows her a generous 65 percent of the vote in every remaining primary, Obama will still lead by 100 pledged delegates going into the convention. (You can test this yourself on our <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/">delegate calculator</a>.) Such a result would mean he would need 358 superdelegates to win the nomination. <a href="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/">DemConWatch</a> estimates that he already has 263, meaning the high estimate for his magic number is below 100 and ticking down by the day.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches,</em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_11.htmlChris Wilson2008-05-09T18:25:00ZA steady stream of endorsements for Obama hold Clinton at bay.News and PoliticsA steady stream of endorsements for Obama hold Clinton at bay.2190987Chris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190987falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_12.html
<p>More Clinton supporters get antsy, Obama unveils a bold new strategy to ignore Clinton, and her money woes could be deeper than expected. All of which sinks Clinton's chances another 0.2 points to <strong>2.3 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, an early and dogged supporter of Hillary Clinton, voiced doubts that Clinton &quot;can get the delegates that she needs&quot; to the <em>Hill</em> yesterday. Feinstein also <a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/feinstein_negative_dividends_o.html">cited</a> &quot;negative dividends&quot; from the race dragging on much longer. Combined with yesterday's <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/07/mcgovern-it-was-personal.aspx">McGovern defection</a>, dissent in the ranks seems to be spreading. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, less money is causing more problems for the Clinton camp. On <em>Good Morning America</em>, George Stephanopoulos claims that Clinton's campaign debt is greater than the $10 million previously reported: &quot;It could be double that, maybe even more.&quot; After the announcement yesterday of Clinton's $6.4 million self-loan—<em>in addition</em> to her $5 million loan in January—it looks as if money woes could be even more daunting than the delegate count. She should start referring to herself as &quot;HillaryClinton.com.&quot; </p>
<p> <a>There's</a> one mitigating factor for Clinton: Obama only won four superdelegates yesterday, while Clinton netted zero—she <a href="http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880507121">won</a> the endorsement of North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, <a href="http://www.slate.com#Correction">*</a> but lost another to Obama. Now Clinton leads by a mere 13 supers. <a>But </a> shouldn't Obama be a super magnet after a seemingly decisive day like May 6 <a href="http://www.slate.com#correct2">*</a>? This just confirms what we've known all along: Superdelegates are&nbsp;terrified of Hillary.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, Clinton has a new strategy: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm">Say Obama can't win white voters</a>. This, just as three extremely white states—West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon—prepare to vote. Obama's strategy: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama8-2008may08,0,3657374.story">Ignore Clinton</a> and focus on McCain. Watch this awkward dynamic escalate as long as Clinton stays in the race: Clinton ratchets up the rhetoric, while Obama pretends she doesn't exist. If an attack ad airs in Montana, but no one responds, does it make a sound?</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches,</strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>
<p><em><em><em><strong> <a>Correction</a></strong><strong>, May 8,</strong></em><em><strong>&nbsp;2008:</strong> Rep. Heath Shuler's name was originally misspelled as Health. (</em></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com#Return">Return</a> to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>
<p><em><strong> <a>Correction</a>, May 13, 2008</strong>: This article originally mistakenly referred to March 6 as&nbsp;the decisive day. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#return2">Return</a> to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>Thu, 08 May 2008 17:12:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_12.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-08T17:12:00ZDubious supporters and money woes drive Clinton's odds ever downward.News and PoliticsDubious supporters and money woes drive Clinton's odds ever downward.2190986Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190986falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_13.html
<p>A high-profile change of heart, a multimillion-dollar loan, and more Obama superdelegates drag Clinton down 1.7 points to <strong>2.5 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>George McGovern, the Democratic nominee for president in 1972, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/07/mcgovern-s-past-guides-his-future.aspx">says he's done supporting Hillary Clinton</a>. He told Fox that she waged a valiant campaign&nbsp;but that it's time for her to drop out because the math is too daunting. McGovern had already flirted with Obama a few weeks ago—<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/george-mcgovern-still-bac_n_98599.html">he told the Huffington Post</a> that Obama had the better chance of winning in November—but today's announcement is a hiccup that Clinton can't afford.</p>
<p>Not only that, McGovern went vigilante and said Clinton should withdraw. Claire McCaskill, a surrogate in chief for Obama, said it would be &quot;inappropriate and awkward and wrong&quot; to tell Clinton when to quit. (This despite Obama supporters Chris Dodd and Patrick Leahy doling out that very advice before Pennsylvania.) Obama's stance on this seems clear—he's confident that he's going to get the nomination, so there's no need to pour salt on Clinton's wounded ego. Plus, it spares him the embarrassment of sure defeats in West Virginia and Kentucky that would occur even if Clinton were out of the race. He'll still lose with her in it, but he won't lose to a ghost. </p>
<p>In order to get to West Virginia and Kentucky, Clinton will need money—money that she doesn't necessarily have. <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usclin0508,0,182940.story">Revelations</a> that Clinton loaned herself $6.4 million last month raise questions about how long she can compete. (And that loan was <em>before</em> she lost North Carolina and won a Pyrrhic victory in Indiana.) On a conference call this morning, her advisers wouldn't say what their overnight fundraising numbers were, but it's safe to say they weren't spectacular. Clinton has plenty of resolve to keep going, but that doesn't mean she has the money necessary to do so. </p>
<p>One more note: Since last night's results, Obama has netted four superdelegates (two uncommitted from North Carolina, one uncommitted from California, and one Clinton convert from Virginia). Clinton has netted zero. (She picked up a North Carolina super but also lost one to Obama.)</p>
<p>So why isn't Clinton totally submerged? Because she hasn't taken herself out of the race yet. As long as she's hanging around, there's still a remote possibility that she can take Obama's place <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/07/reader-contest-what-needs-to-happen-to-obama.aspx">if the unpredictable happens</a>. Plus, Deathwatch wouldn't be as much fun without her.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches,</em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:53:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_13.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-05-07T20:53:00ZMcGovern, loans, and superdelegates all continue to sink the ship.News and PoliticsMcGovern, loans, and superdelegates all continue to sink Clinton's ship.2190876Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190876falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_14.html
<p>Obama comes up big in North Carolina, and Clinton merely ekes out a win (as of 11 p.m. ET) in Indiana, the combination of which all but ends Clinton's shot at the nomination. Her chances drop 8.4 points to <strong>4.2 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>For the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton's candidacy has rested on two possibilities: 1) winning the popular vote and 2) convincing superdelegates that Obama cannot win certain types of voters. (The delegate count is out of reach; she would need at least 70 percent of the remaining delegates to surpass Obama.) Today, Obama exploded both arguments.</p>
<p>The numbers are still trickling in, but it's pretty clear Obama's large win in North Carolina gets him a lot more votes than Clinton's small win in Indiana. If his final North Carolina margin is as high as 14 percent (it's at 15 with 90 percent of precincts reporting), Obama would essentially erase Clinton's popular-vote gains in Pennsylvania. (She netted 215,000 votes in that primary. If 1.5 million people turned out in North Carolina—which looks about right—a 14-point win would net Obama 210,000 votes.) Clinton could still tighten Obama's popular-vote lead by counting votes in Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and Florida. But at this point, she doesn't appear able to close the gap. Some superdelegates say they're waiting to see who wins the popular vote. With that metric out of reach, Clinton loses her strongest case to supers. </p>
<p>Her other argument—that Obama is a flawed candidate who can't win white, working-class Democrats—also loses its punch with tonight's returns. The last few weeks have been the roughest of Obama's candidacy, with the Return of Wright, the &quot;cling&quot; thing, and questions about his patriotism. None of that appears to have severely damaged him today. Meanwhile, Indiana is only <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html">8.9 percent</a> African-American. To an extent, demography is still destiny, as it has been in previous contests: Clinton won 60 percent of whites, and Obama won 92 percent of blacks. But Clinton <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#INDEM">by no means owned</a> lower-income voters—in fact, Obama won the poorest group of voters. Superdelegates may have been concerned that Obama would be abandoned in states like Indiana in the general election—even though there's <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2186204/">no evident relationship</a> between winning states in the primaries and winning them in the general. This vote should put that concern to bed. </p>
<p>So, right now her shot at the nomination rests on one thing: Obama messing up big time. Barring this possibility—which certainly is a possibility, but it's out of Clinton's control—she has no arguments left. She may have the most experience; she may still be the best fighter for the middle class; she may be the stronger general election candidate against John McCain. But that's not enough to&nbsp;persuade superdelegates to vote against the candidate who won the pledged-delegate count and the popular vote. </p>
<p>In her speech tonight, Clinton pledged to stay in the race. The question is, why? </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches,</em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 07 May 2008 03:13:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_14.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-07T03:13:00ZA big loss in North Carolina and a small win in Indiana doom Clinton's chances.News and PoliticsA big loss in North Carolina and a small win in Indiana doom Clinton's chances.2190778Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190778falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_15.html
<p>Not much changes in the last 24 hours before polls open in Indiana and North Carolina, keeping Clinton's chances of winning the nomination at <strong>12.6 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>So, a quick snapshot: Polls show tightening races in both <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">Indiana</a> and <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">North Carolina</a>. Except for the occasional outlier, Clinton leads by a consistent five to 10 points in the Hoosier state, while Obama stays ahead in the Tar Heel state by a similar margin.</p>
<p>Remember how Obama started his &quot;<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/resultscenter/index.php">countdown to the nomination</a>&quot; yesterday? Clinton counters, as usual, with <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NATION/525934081/0/FRONTPAGE">her own math</a>. According to her calculations, the magic number to seal the nomination isn't 2025, as the DNC has said. It's 2208—the number you get if you include Florida and Michigan. It fits her argument that those states should be seated at the convention—which Howard Dean says will happen.</p>
<p>The problem is, superdelegates are still running from Hillary. <em>Politico</em> <a href="http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/">puts her ever-waning lead</a> at 12 supers. Unless Clinton can make a big impression today—either with a blowout victory in Indiana or with an exceptionally strong showing among particular demographics—it's hard to see her stemming the flow.</p>
<p>There is a path for survival, of course, but it looks more fantastical by the day. Right now, she has to 1) win such stunning victories in the remaining states that 2) she wins the popular vote, which would create a small chance that 3) more than 70 percent of the remaining superdelegates decide she is the better nominee, despite Obama's winning the pledged delegate count. She has a better shot if she can <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html">force a favorable Florida/Michigan solution</a> through both the DNC's rules and bylaws committee and its credentials committee. But superdelegates will <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-05-reid_N.htm">come under intense pressure</a> to make up their minds after June 3. At that point, Clinton's entire (plausible) case would rest on winning a popular-vote tally that included Florida and Michigan, which could be achieved only through a long, painful intraparty battle.</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Tue, 06 May 2008 17:31:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_15.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-06T17:31:00ZAnd, lo, on the election day, Deathwatch rested.News and PoliticsAs Indiana and North Carolina vote, Hillary Clinton's chances hover.2190777Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190777falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_16.html
<p>The home stretch to Indiana and North Carolina is pocked by negative ads, indecisive polls, and last-minute revelations about Barack Obama and the Teamsters. With an Indiana win within reach, Clinton's chances inch up 0.3 points to <strong>12.6 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>Clinton gets a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120994756511766395.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">Monday-morning gift</a> in today's <em>Wall Street Journal</em>: Barack Obama reportedly told the Teamsters that he would reduce federal oversight of the union. An Obama spokesman confirmed to the <em>WSJ</em> that Obama believes the current oversight system has &quot;run its course.&quot; On <em>Good Morning America</em>, Obama <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Y4V7WadbI">denied</a> having made a &quot;blanket commitment&quot; to scrap federal oversight, which was <a href="http://www.teamster.org/about/keegel/consentdecree.htm">instituted</a> in 1989 to settle a racketeering lawsuit by the Justice Department. Rather, he said, &quot;the union has done a terrific job cleaning house,&quot; and he'll &quot;examine&quot; the issue as president. The Clinton camp today cried hypocrisy—will he or won't he? But <em>Politico</em> <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html">points to</a> a similar statement made by Clinton that she would be &quot;very open&quot; to re-examining the <a href="http://www.teamster.org/about/keegel/consentdecree.htm">decree</a>. The issue won't decide the primary, but John McCain's ad team can probably squeeze a few spots out of it. </p>
<p>Speaking of which, you know it's the eleventh hour when attack ads start flying. Clinton <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF48jPeZDsQ">doubles down</a> on the gas-tax holiday angle, despite criticism from her opponent, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/pelosi-gas-tax-holiday-wo_n_99674.html">Senate leadership</a>, and <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN04324440">economists</a>. Obama <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpYHYyJ4cOY">hits back</a>, accusing Clinton of pushing bad policy for political gain. (Look for pundits to treat Indiana's vote as a mini-referendum on this issue, deservedly or not.) Clinton also <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_mail_attacks_Obama_on_guns.html">produces a mailer</a> questioning Obama's support of gun rights.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p>Obama <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/the-early-word-guam-which-counts-is-counting/">won Guam by seven votes</a> Saturday, but that doesn't really change math: The candidates each get two delegates. Obama did, however, <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/05/980587.aspx">net</a> four superdelegates to Clinton's zero over the weekend, plus <a href="http://www.politickermd.com/editormd/2082/cryor-endorse-obama">two more today</a>. Clinton's lead still holds at 19 supers, although a couple <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-supers5-2008may05,0,4564727.story">say they'd consider switching</a> to Obama after June 3 if he wins the pledged delegate count and popular vote. </p>
<p>With these supers in pocket, the Obama campaign <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/resultscenter/index.php">starts its official countdown</a> to the nomination. The number of delegates needed to win now stands at 276. It may seem a bit premature, but keep in mind there are 187 pledged delegates at stake in tomorrow's contests and only 217 left after that. Of course, this assumes the magic number is 2,025. If you count Florida and Michigan—as the Clinton campaign <a href="http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7495">insists we should</a>—the number is 2,209. </p>
<p>Two national polls are <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/05/obama-rebounds-in-new-national-poll/">tantalizingly contradictory</a>. <em>USA</em><em> Today</em>/Gallup puts Clinton up 51 percent to 44 percent. (Back in February, Obama led by 10.) CBS/<em>New York Times</em> gives Obama the lead, 50 percent to 38 percent. Pick your fave! On the local level, Clinton's Indiana lead seems to be holding: <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">Two out of three weekend polls</a> put her a few points ahead. In North Carolina, Obama's lead hovers around eight points, according to <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">several polls</a>. The scoring isn't too complicated: A Clinton sweep would change the tone of the race, but not the math. (It would, however, inch her toward a potential popular-vote victory.) An Obama sweep would put extreme pressure on Clinton to drop out. So, of course, the result will be as inconclusive as possible: a decisive but not commanding win by Obama in North Carolina and a slight, candidacy-justifying win by Clinton in Indiana. </p>
<p>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Mon, 05 May 2008 18:12:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_16.htmlChristopher Beam2008-05-05T18:12:00ZWith Indiana within reach, Clinton's chances inch up.News and PoliticsWith Indiana within reach, Clinton's chances inch up.2190638Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190638falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_17.html
<p>Clinton's prospects for surviving Indiana and North Carolina continue to look favorable. Howard Dean still wants to seat Florida and Michigan delegates—which would probably benefit Clinton—while another former DNC chair endorses Obama. Jimmy Carter indicates he'll follow the pledged delegates, which is good news for Obama. Plug all that into the equation and Clinton pops up 0.2 points to <strong>12.3 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>Last Friday, we <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2189984/">compared the Clinton campaign to a shark</a> that must continuously move forward in order to stay alive. Here's another muddled maritime metaphor that applies: that of a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfycZ5OeRLo&amp;eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=orca+playing+seal&amp;sitesearch=">killer whale toying with a baby seal</a> before inevitably eating it. Unfortunately for Clinton, she's the seal. </p>
<p>Ever since Clinton's <a href="http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/PA.html">nine-point win in Pennsylvania</a> last week, the narrative has steadily shifted in Clinton's favor. Now Obama's commanding lead in the polls in North Carolina has dwindled to single digits. Rasmussen has him with <a href="http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/north_carolina/toplines_north_carolina_democratic_primary_may_1_2008">a 49-40 lead today</a>, an <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/north_carolina/toplines_north_carolina_democratic_primary_april_28_2008">erosion of 5 percentage points</a> since Monday. Zogby gives Obama a <a href="http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1495">14-point lead in North Carolina</a> and reports a dead heat in Indiana. </p>
<p>In other good news for Clinton, DNC Chairman Howard Dean appeared on <em>The</em><em>Daily Show</em> last night and <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=167527&amp;title=howard-dean&amp;byDate=true">reiterated</a> his resolve to seat Florida and Michigan at the convention. The guys at DemConWatch have diligently <a href="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers.html">calculated six outcomes</a>, and each one that seats Florida and/or Michigan in some way benefits Clinton by as few as 27 net delegates or as many as 121.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, former DNC Chairman Paul Kirk, a Massachusetts superdelegate, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aBtdfyDJEwZM&amp;refer=home">endorsed Obama</a> today. This will snag fewer headlines than yesterday's news that another former DNC leader, Joe Andrew, <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/01/joe_andrew_jumps_from_clinton.html">defected from Clinton's camp</a> in favor of Obama's. But it can't hurt.</p>
<p>And speaking of established party figures, superdelegate and former President Jimmy Carter hinted in an <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1907961/Hillary-Clinton-supporters-must-accept-outcome-of-popular-vote,-Jimmy-Carter-says.html">interview with the <em>Daily Telegraph</em></a> that he will back the pledged-delegate winner, a position that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and at least seven other superdelegates support. Barring a miraculous revote in Florida or Michigan (a scenario that's been all but ruled out), the pledged-delegate honors will almost certainly go to Obama. </p>
<p>After May 6, the story line could shift in Clinton's favor. But as First Read <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/971485.aspx">noted</a>, the front-runner label is more often a liability than a boon. If Clinton does well on Tuesday, the narrative will turn against her again. Obama, who is most comfortable as the insurgent, will regain his footing. (He's already trying, with a new <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/obama_ratchets.html">ad slamming Clinton's gas-tax-holiday proposal</a>.) If he can stage a &quot;comeback,&quot; the case that Clinton had a reasonable shot at the nomination will look flimsy in retrospect, while Obama will look like the predator toying with its prey before sinking in its teeth.</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Fri, 02 May 2008 19:47:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_17.htmlChris Wilson2008-05-02T19:47:00ZPolls predict Clinton can survive Tuesday, but the path forward is pocked with pitfalls.News and PoliticsPolls predict Clinton can survive Tuesday, but the path forward is pocked with pitfalls.2190479Chris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190479falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_18.html
<p>Obama woos a superdelegate away from Clinton, Hillary's own supporters dislike her gas-tax holiday, and new polls suggest the Obama-Clinton split is getting deeper but that Democrats are still likely to win the White House. Clinton dives half a point to <strong>12.1 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Former DNC chair Joe Andrew sounded a clarion call for superdelegates by endorsing Barack Obama today. Andrew is an impressive get because he's the kind of establishment Democrat that Obama could win over only by brute political and mathematical force. (Not to mention he has two first names.) In <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g90V8XQZSWr4K1yzT-vNrffP9wNQD90CTQ281">an interview with the Associated Press</a>, Andrew said that Obama wisely rejected the gas-tax holiday and <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/01/wright-s-silver-lining.aspx">deftly handled the Rev. Wright imbroglio</a> and that it was time to heal the rift in the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>Any time a superdelegate publicly shifts from one candidate to another, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/15/change-of-hope.aspx">it's major news</a>. But Andrew's endorsement is especially important for Obama at this juncture. According to polls, Clinton is closing in on him in North Carolina, and she's the tentative front-runner in Indiana. On balance, superdelegates have continued to trickle toward him at a quicker rate. But equipped with a high-profile flip, Obama can show—rather than tell—superdelegates that it's time to move on from Rev. Wright and Obama's &quot;bitter&quot; comments. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the gas-tax issue still leads this week's news—policy alert!—and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/expert-support-for-gas-ta_n_99474.html">experts are roundly panning</a> Clinton's and McCain's stances on the issue. Making matters worse for Clinton, the Obama campaign is pointing out that staunch Clinton supporter New York Gov. David Paterson agrees with Obama on this one. Candidates are bound to have disagreements with their supporters, but even minor dissention can remind superdelegates of other <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54d3af5a-abde-4874-9d98-2bc4b8e23185">Clinton infighting</a>.</p>
<p>Back to the polls, Democrats are growing increasingly partisan within their own party. An <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/01/966433.aspx">NBC/<em>Wall Street Journal </em>poll</a> reports that 30 percent of Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama in the general election if he's the nominee and 22 percent of Obama folks won't swing Clinton's way. On its face, this is a potentially ripe datum for Hillary—more Democrats won't vote for the Democratic nominee if Obama is the chosen one. </p>
<p>But once you explore the poll further, you realize that those numbers may not mean much. Fifty-three percent of surveyed voters want a Democrat to become president; 33 percent say they'd prefer a Republican. Based on that metric, it seems that regardless of who the nominee is, the Democrats will win. But that, of course, is also hogwash, especially considering McCain's neck-and-neck polls with both Democrats. The moral of the story, as always, is that polling only makes us more confused.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Thu, 01 May 2008 20:01:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/05/the_hillary_deathwatch_18.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-05-01T20:01:00ZA Clinton traitor is in Obama's midst. Plus: The gas tax pollutes Hillary's campaign.News and PoliticsA traitor is in Obama's midst.2190370Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190370falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch.html
<p>Barack Obama slams the Rev. Wright, Clinton's gas-tax plan receives jeers, and Indiana is still a tossup, all of which brings Clinton down 0.3 points to <strong>12.6 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Obama's decision to cut Wright loose Tuesday was an investment in the future: Let the story dominate news for one more day, then hope it tapers off. In a press conference, Obama said he's &quot;outraged&quot; at Wright's recent remarks about Louis Farrakhan, the government inventing AIDS, and U.S. military efforts being equivalent to terrorism. These comments &quot;should be denounced,&quot; Obama said, adding, &quot;I do not see the relationship being the same after this.&quot;</p>
<p>It's too early to say whether this move diffuses the Wright issue. Now that Wright got a taste of the spotlight, he probably doesn't want to go away. (Obama had better hope Wright's <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Rev_Wrights_book_tour.html">book tour</a> happens <em>after</em> Nov. 5.) But at least Obama can dissociate himself fully from his pastor, as opposed to upholding the earlier wishy-washy (some would say nuanced) disown-the-words-but-not-the-man stance he articulated in his Philadelphia speech last month. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Clinton is making her &quot;gas-tax holiday&quot; the centerpiece of a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jv1_H8xsIs">new ad campaign</a>, condemning Obama for failing to address high prices at the pump. But among pundits, her proposal (and McCain's similar plan) is getting laughed out of the room. The normally sympathetic Paul Krugman <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/">calls</a> Clinton's plan &quot;pointless&quot; and McCain's &quot;evil,&quot; while his colleague Thomas Friedman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=2&amp;oref=slogin&amp;ref=opinion&amp;pagewanted=print&amp;oref=slogin">denounces</a> the plan as &quot;money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks.&quot; Still, it's the kind of pander that could work, no matter how transparent or absurd. If voters associate Clinton with cheap gas, mission accomplished. </p>
<p>The superdelegate scene is something of a wash today. Obama snags Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley and Indiana Rep. Baron Hill, while Clinton picks up Pennsylvania AFL-CIO president Bill George, narrowing Clinton's lead to 21 supers. Some people think <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/29/abc-more-superdelegates-head-to-obama/">more are on the way</a>. The trickle of supers is telling, though: It shows that the worst Wright week ever has not yet been enough to drive superdelegates away from Obama.</p>
<p>In the polls, Indiana hasn't shed its tossup status. A new Howey-Gauge survey shows the two candidates <a href="http://www.news-tribune.net/local/local_story_120104728.html">statistically tied</a>, with Obama at 47 percent and Clinton at 45 percent. But the <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">last few Indiana polls</a> show Clinton leading. The fate of the race hangs in the balance! Indiana is all-powerful! Except, not really. If, like us, you believe that superdelegates are going to be <em>very</em> squeamish about voting against the pledged delegate count, then Indiana merely determines whether Clinton drops out in May or June.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:27:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-30T17:27:00ZObama slams Wright, Clinton's gas-tax plan gets jeers, and Indiana is still a tossup.News and PoliticsObama slams Wright, Clinton's gas-tax plan gets jeers, and Indiana is still a tossup.2190281Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190281falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.html
<p></p>
<p>A media frenzy over the Rev. Wright, a bump in matchup polls, and a key North Carolina endorsement buoy Clinton's chances 0.5 points to <strong>12.9 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>The response to the Rev. Wright's speech at the National Press Club was so negative, some papers must be prepping Barack Obama's obituary. &quot;PASTOR DISASTER,&quot; screamed the <em>New York Post</em>. The <em>Washington Post</em>'s Dana Milbank, under the headline &quot;Could Rev. Wright Spell Doom for Obama?,&quot; <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2008/04/obamas_pastor_reignites_race_c.html">argues</a> that Wright &quot;added lighter fuel&quot; to the controversy by repeating some of his most inflammatory ideas. Indeed, Wright criticized America's foreign policy, praised Louis Farrakhan, and reiterated his conviction that the government created AIDS as a method of population control. In Bob Herbert's words, Wright went to Washington &quot;not to praise Barack Obama, but to bury him.&quot; </p>
<p>Think back, though, to when Wright's remarks first emerged. The sky was falling, the horse race was over, and Obama was getting shipped off to the glue factory. Yet his national poll numbers <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/27/wright-controversy-doesnt-hurt-obama-poll-shows/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=modValue">hardly moved</a>. In Pennsylvania, he continued to close the gap with Clinton. It's impossible to isolate cause and effect in flaps like this, but in retrospect the Wright flap (at least version 1.0) looked much more media-driven than voter-driven. There's little to indicate that Wright's &quot;<a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/what_is_wright_up_to.php">revenge tour</a>&quot; will be any different. It doesn't bode well that Wright enjoys the spotlight. But in the long run, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/28/do-the-wright-thing.aspx">Obama is lucky</a> that Wright came out of hiding now rather than in October. There's no doubt that ties to Wright would hurt Obama in the general (even though <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339949,00.html">more than half of Americans</a> don't believe Obama shares Wright's views), but anybody who was going to vote against Obama because of his crazy preacher had probably already heard of him.</p>
<p>Superdelegates are a different story. Obama continues to close Clinton's lead, picking up endorsements from <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCpYk">Sen. Jeff Bingaman</a>, N.M., and Rep. Ben Chandler, Ky. Clinton now leads by <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/29/955777.aspx">23 supers</a>. But Clinton <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9939.html">snaps up</a> the biggest endorsement of the day, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley. Easley's backing is symbolic for several reasons. First, he's got cred among NASCAR voters, which could help Clinton perpetuate the Obama-is-elitist narrative. Second, he initially backed John Edwards, suggesting that this could foretell an Edwards announcement. (Elizabeth Edwards is reportedly <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29edwards.html?_r=1&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;oref=slogin&amp;ref=us&amp;adxnnlx=1209470559-h6E7XA6ZywTn0euvKA4jsA">pushing him</a> to endorse Clinton.) And lastly, his state will almost certainly go for Obama, making his decision that much more difficult. Some reports claim Easley was disappointed with Obama for refusing to debate Clinton in his state. </p>
<p>In the polls, Clinton gets a boost as well. A new AP/Ipsos poll has her leading John McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent. Obama, meanwhile, remains tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent. Obama should be concerned, certainly, but for now this poll is an outlier: The last several matchup polls show both <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php">Obama</a> and <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvC.php">Clinton</a> roughly even with McCain. </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:27:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-29T17:27:00ZMore Wright fallout and a North Carolina endorsement buoy Clinton once again.News and PoliticsMore Wright fallout and a North Carolina endorsement buoy Clinton once again.2190213Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190213falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.html
<p></p>
<p>With every new sound bite, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright bails another bucketful of water from Hillary Clinton's campaign dinghy. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is being pegged as a liability for Democrats in congressional races. Clinton's chances float up 0.5 points to <strong>12.4 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>By the time <a href="http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/rev-wright-takes-his-message-directly-to-the-media/">Wright took to the stage</a> this morning at the National Press Club, he had already made two high-profile appearances, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html">on PBS</a> and at an <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS01/80427047/&amp;imw=Y">NAACP dinner in Detroit</a>. Even though his rhetoric was calmer today than in Detroit, he managed to keep his name in the news, and, combined with his earlier remarks, he's sure to dominate the cable-news cycle. The conventional wisdom says that every time Wright shows up on a television screen, it hurts Obama, which we're inclined to believe for now. <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/28/do-the-wright-thing.aspx">There's an outside chance</a> that by going public with new comments, Wright can drown out the older, more inflammatory ones. But that's a nuanced view, and if this primary season has taught us anything, it's that nuance doesn't win elections. </p>
<p>But even if Wright wasn't making appearances in the flesh, he'd still be showing up on TV screens in some markets. A Mississippi Republican is using Obama and Wright <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sPeQ2mKRro">in a new ad</a> to attack his Democratic challenger for Congress. Obama has endorsed the Democratic candidate, Travis Childers, and the ad scolds Childers for not distancing himself from Obama after Obama didn't distance himself from Wright. This plus an earlier ad<strong></strong>from the North Carolina GOP featuring Wright and Obama may make some superdelegates skittish about supporting the senator. Picking a nominee isn't just to ensure your party controls the White House but also to help your party pick up seats in Congress. If Obama and Wright become a liability down-ballot, then Clinton may be seen as a better alternative.</p>
<p>With all of this bad news for Obama, we should note that the entire country doesn't hate him quite yet. <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/134254">A new <em>Newsweek</em> poll</a> reports that more people have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton than favorable. Obama and McCain, meanwhile, both have favorable numbers above 50 percent and unfavorable ratings in the low 40s. Interestingly, both Democrats' favorability rankings have gone down considerably since March, but McCain's has stayed relatively level.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:44:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-04-28T19:44:00ZThe Rev. Wright resurfaces, buoying Clinton's chances.News and PoliticsThe Rev. Wright resurfaces, which helps buoy Clinton's chances.2190118Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2190118falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_4.html
<p>Clinton's win in Pennsylvania changes the whole Deathwatch calculus. Back when things were really dismal for her, no news was good news. As my colleague Chris Beam <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2188627/">aptly put it in early April</a>, her odds were like the health meter in Gears of War: It went up any time it wasn't actively going down. Now that she's on the up-and-up again, the adage about sharks applies: She has to stay in motion constantly to stay alive. (Note: Apparently this is <a href="http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/shark.htm">only true of some sharks</a>.) So a <a href="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080425/NEWS0502/804250437/1324/NEWS0502">new poll</a> that has Obama up 41 percent to Clinton's 38 percent in Indiana—functionally a tie, given the margin of error—is a giant inertia killer on the horizon. But continued attacks on Obama from several fronts offset the damage, so we're only docking her 0.2 points, bringing her to <strong>11.9 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>Let's cover the bad news for Obama first: As Deathwatch <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2189890/">mentioned yesterday</a>, pastor-pariah the Rev. Jeremiah Wright recently gave an interview on PBS, which airs tonight. While <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/25/945005.aspx">some argue</a> that any humanization of Wright can help Obama in the long run, the mere reminder that Wright exists cannot possibly help Obama today. Wright continues to be a liability for Obama, as we are reminded by <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXxkctYRAZQ">this ad</a> that the North Carolina Republican Party <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/nc-republicans-say-the-ad-will-go-on/">claims it will run</a> ahead of the state's May 6 primary.</p>
<p>Offsetting the Wright story is Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., the House majority whip and highest-ranking African-American in Congress, who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/politics/25clinton.html">lashed out at Bill Clinton</a> in an interview with the <em>New York Times</em>, calling the former president's statements on race over the course of the primary election &quot;bizarre.&quot; Clyburn did not endorse either candidate ahead of the South Carolina primary, which <a href="http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/SC.html">Obama won with 55 percent of the vote</a> back when John Edwards was still in the race, and Clyburn told the <em>Times</em> he doesn't have immediate plans to break his neutrality. In the same way that Wright's interview resurrects the Wright story, Clyburn's interview reminds us of Bill Clinton's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/bill-clinton-obama-is-ju_n_83406.html">comparison</a> of Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson's in late January, which begot a wave of bad publicity for Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Obama is reportedly out-fundraising Clinton in North Carolina <a href="http://www.charlotte.com/171/story/595580.html">by a 3-to-1 margin</a>.</p>
<p>Of the nine remaining contests, North Carolina offers the largest number of pledged delegates, with 115. Obama still has a <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">healthy lead</a> here, so news that Clinton faces a tough fight in Indiana does not help her argument that she still has a mathematical chance of winning the nomination. Should there be any renewed discussion of factoring Florida and Michigan back into the bottom line, <a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002711553">as CQ Politics suggests</a>, she might be able to survive a lukewarm night next Tuesday. Otherwise, her most immediate goal remains surviving the next 10 days.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:34:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_4.htmlChris Wilson2008-04-25T20:34:00ZClinton will need better numbers in Indiana to prove she can survive.News and PoliticsClinton will need better numbers in Indiana to prove she can survive.2189984Chris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189984falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_5.html
<p> It must be nice to be Hillary Clinton right now. Adoring fans have given her $10 million. The media have started to believe that she can actually win. Jeremiah Wright is coming out of hibernation just in time to derail Obama's candidacy once and for all. Sure, her chances of winning the nomination are on the rise (by 1.4 points, to <strong>12.1 percent</strong>). But you know what? She still can't win.</p>
<p>First, the good news: <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/10.php">Raising $10 million in the 30 or so hours</a> after her win in Pennsylvania is a very good thing. It means people still care about her, superdelegates can still trust her, and she can still buy <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/22/clinton-star-trek.aspx"><em>Star Trek</em> pantsuits</a>. The money bomb is an impressive fiscal feat for Clinton. Even better, it upstages Obama on his best political attribute—fundraising prowess.</p>
<p>It gets better. Remember our old friend the&nbsp;Rev. Wright? Well, he's tired of being cooped up, and he's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI2T7PHxsYY">coming home to roost</a>. Over the next week, he'll appear on <a href="http://www.ucc.org/news/jeremiah-wright-to-be-intervie.html"><em>Bill Moyers</em></a> (to air on Friday), deliver a keynote address to the NAACP Detroit branch, and speak at the National Press Club. The more face time Wright gets, the better for Hillary Clinton—even if she never broaches the subject.</p>
<p>And for the cherry on top, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/24/wait-clinton-does-have-a-shot.aspx">the media continue to entertain</a> the idea that Clinton could actually win. The cover of <em>Time</em> suggests &quot;There Can Only Be One,&quot; with photos of both Democratic candidates. <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/how_clinton_can_do_it.html">Chris Cillizza says</a> she has a plausible path to the nomination. The <em>Wall Street Journal</em> says that <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899936978040077.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news">doubts are being stirred</a> about Obama. Clinton and company must be giddy over these developments, as they could persuade superdelegates. </p>
<p>With all that good stuff, her chances should easily climb above 15 percent, right? No.</p>
<p>Right now, the Clinton Kool-Aid is on tap, and the media are doing keg stands. The same writers who once said Clinton was doomed are now ignoring the fact that the math is even more oppressive for Clinton. Obama will likely need to convince 25 percent to 35 percent of the about 300 uncommitted superdelegates to support him, and he will reach the 2,024 delegates needed to become the nominee. Put another way, Clinton needs to convince 65 percent to 75 percent of them to vote for her. That's 200 elected officials and party bigwigs she needs to convince not to support the guy who has the most pledged delegates. Moreover, she won't win the popular vote if Obama wins North Carolina—the biggest state remaining—by a blowout margin (<a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">as polls suggest he will</a>). </p>
<p>Not to mention the real reason a Clinton comeback won't happen: Superdelegates still aren't endorsing her. Since her win in Pennsylvania, Obama has announced three super endorsements; Clinton has announced one. Clinton's new friend is <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7268">Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee</a>, a state she won easily. Obama's three are from Nebraska (a state he won), Oklahoma (where Clinton destroyed him), and Oregon (which hasn't even voted yet). Adding one new superdelegate and a pile of cash does not <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">turn the tide</a>. Quantitatively and qualitatively, Obama still has the winning hand.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:44:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_5.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-04-24T18:44:00ZSuperdelegates are still skittish, but at least Clinton has some money in her pocket.News and PoliticsSuperdelegates are still scared of Clinton, but at least now she has some cash to throw around.2189890Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189890falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_6.html
<p>On Monday, we <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2189567/">predicted</a> Clinton's margin of victory in Pennsylvania: &quot;Clinton will win by eight points—just high enough for her to stick around, just low enough for Obama supporters to claim she's done.&quot; As it turns out, we were off; it was more like 10 points. But our conclusion still stands: Clinton now has an excuse to drag her delegate-hemorrhaging candidacy around for a few more weeks. But despite the gloomy prospects, we're hiking her chances of winning the nomination up 0.8 points to <strong>10.7 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>Why the raise? Two words: popular vote. As we and everyone who can read knows, Clinton has no shot of closing Obama's pledged-delegate lead. Her candidacy therefore depends on convincing superdelegates to vote for her <em>despite</em> that lead. But vague claims of &quot;electability&quot; aren't enough. She needs numbers on her side, and the popular vote is her last shot at beating Obama by a legitimate metric. With Pennsylvania under her belt—the primary netted her&nbsp;a little more than&nbsp;200,000 votes—Clinton now trails Obama by about 500,000, according to <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html">RealClearPolitics</a>. And that's <em>before</em> the spin. If you count Florida's and Michigan's votes, which she no doubt will, Obama's popular-vote lead shrinks to about 100,000. Whether or not she closes that gap, she's close enough to argue that they're tied. </p>
<p>Plus, this buys Clinton time to push her other talking points: She wins &quot;big states&quot; (which of course has <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2186204/">no discernable bearing</a> on general-election viability). She commands coalitions necessary to win the presidency in November. She is more &quot;electable&quot; than Obama against McCain. These arguments don't hold much water in the face of electoral math, but, then again, superdelegates aren't quite rational creatures. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, Clinton is still broke. FEC reports released yesterday <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_finance">showed</a> that her campaign started April in the red, and that was before the Pennsylvania advertising blitzkrieg. Once the networks called the state for Clinton, a spokesman fired off an e-mail announcing she had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in 20 minutes. The number was <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clintons_take.html">up to $2.5 million</a> as of 11:30 p.m. That's good news, but remember that every Clinton fundraising number has been methodically eclipsed by&nbsp;the Obama money machine. Who knows: This time could be different. </p>
<p>Next up: Indiana. Recent polls are <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">indecisive</a>, but Clinton has reason to fear Obama in the Hoosier State, where basketball chops are as important as stimulus packages. North Carolina, meanwhile, is <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">about as suspenseful</a> as a double-headed coin toss.</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:45:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_6.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-22T17:45:00ZClinton has a shot at winning the popular vote. Unfortunately, she's broke.News and PoliticsClinton has a shot at winning the popular vote. Unfortunately, she's broke.2189695Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189695falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_7.html
<p> Despite a flurry of negative ads from both sides, Hillary&nbsp;Clinton's Pennsylvania lead holds steady. So with no clear ups or downs, we're putting her chances of winning the nomination at <strong>9.9 percent</strong>.</p>
<p><em>If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.</em> Both Clinton and Barack&nbsp;Obama chucked that philosophy out the window long ago, but this weekend marked the nastiness apex, as Clinton aired an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qep2x2QcJbQ">attack ad</a> responding to an <a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1511781526">attack ad</a> by Obama responding to an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KQ7f4lwpbA">attack ad</a> by Clinton. (Followed by Clinton's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDap46WOCmA">&quot;closing argument&quot; ad</a>.) The ads mostly rehashed old battles over lobbyist money and health care but with renewed vigor. Neither candidate comes out on top, but the mudslinging hurts Obama more since it <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2189486/">undermines</a> his entire &quot;new politics&quot; message. He claims Clinton's attacks have forced him to throw elbows, but in our experience, &quot;she hit me first&quot; stopped being a valid excuse after second grade. </p>
<p>Obama made yet another &quot;gaffe&quot; over the weekend when he said that &quot;either Democrat would be better than John McCain, and all three of us would be better than George Bush.&quot; Not quite on message—Obama's campaign has been painting McCain as Bush 3.0—but hardly a devastating blunder. Obama can always point out that &quot;better than Bush&quot; isn't much of a compliment. Also, recall that Clinton said McCain had <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/clinton-mccain-and-i-hav_n_90310.html">passed</a> &quot;the commander in chief threshold&quot; whereas Obama had not. </p>
<p>On the superdelegate front, Obama is still closing the gap but slower than before. Today he <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/An_Ohio_super_for_Obama.html">picks up</a> Ohio DNC member Enid Goubeaux. But Clinton racked up <a href="http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/three-more-superdelegates-for-hillary/">three more supers</a> at the end of last week—Ohio Rep. Betty Sutton and two New Jersey ex-governors. That gives Clinton 262 to Obama's 237. Supers are now watching to see what happens in Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>So what <em>will</em> happen? <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">All of the most recent polls</a> except one show Clinton with a six-to-10 point lead over Obama—roughly the same as Clinton's lead over the past few weeks. The outlier, a PPP poll, puts Obama three points ahead. But it's possible these polls understate Obama's support, given the <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9735.html">massive numbers of newly registered Democrats</a>. (About 217,000 new voters, largely Democrats, have registered since January. More than 178,000 voters have switched their party affiliation, overwhelmingly in favor of Dems.) It's hard to say if that will be enough for Obama to cut into Clinton's margin in any significant way. But that, as they say, is why they play the game.</p>
<p>In endorsement news, Obama wins the blessing of the Salmon Lady. The <em>Financial Times</em> may not be the chosen paper of Pennsylvania's white working class, but the timing is still good for Obama, who will take all the help he can get. </p>
<p>Conventional wisdom suggests that Clinton needs to win by about 10 points in Pennsylvania in order to stay in the race. Her campaign puts the number around one point. What this means, of course, is that Clinton will win by eight points—just high enough for her to stick around, just low enough for Obama supporters&nbsp;to claim she's done. You heard it here first! </p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:36:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_7.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-21T17:36:00ZDespite a flurry of attacks, Clinton holds steady in Pennsylvania.News and PoliticsDespite a flurry of attacks, Clinton holds steady in Pennsylvania.2189567Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189567falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_8.html
<p> As we've noted here before, Hillary Clinton must convince voters—well, superdelegates actually—of two things: not only that she's the best candidate, but that she's <em>so</em> the best candidate that it's worth dragging this election out at least until June 3, the day of the last primary. That's why the <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/18/long-time-clinton-ally-robert-reich-to-endorse-obama/">endorsement of Obama by Robert Reich</a>, a longtime Clinton family friend and labor secretary in Bill's administration, is pretty bad news for her. Even if most people don't give a damn who Reich personally favors for president, this kind of <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187560/">Bill Richardson-style</a> betrayal reminds us that the establishment is slouching toward Obama. That, along with reports that superdelegates are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/politics/18dems.html?hp">unmoved by her attacks</a>, forces us to dock Clinton 0.8 points, bringing her to <strong>9.9 percent</strong> going into the weekend.</p>
<p>Clinton still knows how to slap on a smile, though. Her cameo on <em>The Colbert Report</em> last night went over well, as she pretended to help Stephen fix the video system. (&quot;Try toggling the input.&quot;) The senator was outshined, however, by <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080418/cm_thenation/1312414">a scene-stealing John Edwards</a>, whose six-minute delivery of &quot;the EdWORDs&quot; almost made you wish he was still in the race. </p>
<p>Yesterday's news was dominated largely by fallout from the ABC debate, which caused <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800912.html">quite a backlash</a> (with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html?em&amp;ex=1208664000&amp;en=9cd7feb4e490e79e&amp;ei=5087%0A">some</a> exceptions) for its focus on gaffes and personal associations. Whatever questions it may have raised about Obama in the long run—particularly his relationship with former Weatherman Bill Ayers—he appears to have benefited in the short term due to the night's &quot;negativity,&quot; turning the harsh spotlight into a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/17/the-media-bias-pendulum-swings.aspx">fundraising call</a>. </p>
<p>Oh, and speaking of debates, it looks like Wednesday's was the last one. Obama <a href="http://www.charlotte.com/540/story/586147.html">strongly hints</a> that he will not agree to an April 27 debate in North Carolina, adding that &quot;I could deliver Senator Clinton's lines; I'm sure she could deliver mine.&quot; That's one less chance for Clinton to knock him down.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Obama endorsement train trundles along. Two national security gurus, former Sens. Sam Nunn and David Boren, <a href="http://thepage.time.com/endorsement-statements-of-former-sens-nunn-boren-for-obama-2/">throw their hats</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring">O-ring</a>. </p>
<p>T-minus three days to Pennsylvania.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com.</em></strong></p>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:06:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_8.htmlChris Wilson2008-04-18T19:06:00ZAnother former Clintonite throws his hat in the O-ring.News and PoliticsHillary Deathwatch: Another former Clintonite throws his hat in the O-ring.2189480Chris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189480falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_9.html
<p> The 21<sup>st</sup> debate has come and gone, and the general consensus is that Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama behind the lecterns. Her win barely outweighs the announcement of two more superdelegates and a newspaper endorsement for Obama. As a result, her chances of winning the nomination glide upward by 0.3 points to <strong>10.7 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>The debate in Philadelphia—which was <a href="http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/chicagoland/2008/04/16/reviews-are/">near-universally panned in the blogosphere</a>—spent its first hour on <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/16/debate-recap-well-that-was-anticlimactic.aspx">process questions</a>. Usually, this would have hurt Clinton, whose mastery of policy details has shone through in previous debates. But last night, Obama bore the brunt of the process questions. It was like a guilt-by-association greatest hits—we heard about former Weatherman Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and the &quot;cling&quot; thing. The result, aside from getting people to turn off their TVs, was to remind viewers that Obama could be vulnerable to Republican attacks in the general election. </p>
<p>For Clinton, this was the best-case scenario. As much lip service as the candidates give to remaining primary voters, the struggle is really for superdelegates. The more Clinton can remind superdelegates that Obama isn't <a href="http://www.mikewimmer.com/images/large8.jpg">Mr. Clean</a>, the more likely they'll be to subvert the voters' will and vote for her at the convention. Granted, there's that whole &quot;subvert the voters' will&quot; thing that gets in the way, but those are details that can be hammered out later.</p>
<p>Speaking of superdelegates, a Washington, D.C., super <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/04/breaking_news_thomas_backs_oba.html">switched from Clinton to Obama</a> after 83 percent of his district voted for Barack. Obama also <a href="http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-oklahoma-superdelegate-endorsement/">picked up one in Oklahoma</a>, a state Clinton won by 24 points. That's a net gain of three for Obama, and he now trails Clinton by 22 superdelegates, <a href="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html">according to DemConWatch</a>.</p>
<p>Also, one last endorsement to relay. The <a href="http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080417_VOTE_FOR_BARACK_OBAMA.html"><em>Philadelphia Daily News</em> says Obama is their man</a>, echoing the <em>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</em>'s endorsement yesterday, which described the primary as a choice between the past and the future. The<em> Daily News</em> prefers the future.</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em><em><strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a></strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_9.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-04-17T17:00:00ZClinton edges out Obama in the debate, but he picks up two more superdelegates.News and PoliticsHillary Deathwatch: Clinton wins the debate, but Obama picks up two superdelegates.2189362Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189362falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_10.html
<p> A morning endorsement from Bruce Springsteen will help Barack Obama dominate the news cycle heading into tonight's debate. That, coupled with some new poll numbers and a newspaper endorsement, helps drag Clinton's ship down by two points to a <strong>10.4 percent </strong> chance of winning the nomination.</p>
<p>Barack Obama may have E Street to thank if he ever lives on Pennsylvania Avenue. Bruce Springsteen endorsed Obama today, the first mega-celebrity to endorse since Oprah, Babs, and the gang in January. While Obama could've used the Boss' backing before New Jersey's primary on Feb. 5 (Obama lost by 10 points), today's timing actually works well for Obama. Springsteen is a perfect emissary for the campaign in the wake of Obama's &quot;cling&quot; comments in San Francisco. The Boss acknowledges as much and <a href="http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html">writes in his endorsement</a> that &quot;[w]hile these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision.&quot; If Obama can coax Springsteen onto the trail in Pennsylvania, that will start to nullify Clinton's and McCain's claims that he's an elitist. The less traction Clinton gets on that issue, the more desperate she looks. Desperate candidates don't become the nominee.</p>
<p>But Clinton isn't giving up. She released <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAXucMY7Dvk">the first attack ad</a> since the lead-up to Wisconsin's primary, using man-on-the-street interviews to hammer Obama on his &quot;bitter&quot; gaffe. Obama responded with two <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=oc73eM0E3Fs">rebuttal</a> <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=YdGTLgOtJCI">ads</a> that don't attack Clinton directly but guide the conversation back to Obama's legislative record. We'd call this spat a draw, but Obama <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/15/on_cable_obama_deluges_pa_with.html">is reportedly outspending Clinton on advertising</a> by at least 2-to-1. He wins this round.</p>
<p>The polls, meanwhile, are grim for Clinton. More surveys are starting to include the post-<em>bitter</em> landscape, and none of the reputable outfits shows a major shift toward Clinton. New <em>Los Angeles</em><em> Times</em>/Bloomberg data <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll16apr16,0,794499.story">show Clinton ahead by just five points</a> in Pennsylvania. <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_041608.pdf">Public Policy Polling</a> (PDF) has Obama in the lead by three points. A glimmer of sunshine: She <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7970b4f8-b612-4f2e-8dde-3f865c3d7ac5">demolishes him in Kentucky</a>, according to SurveyUSA.</p>
<p>Moving along, Obama, not Clinton, <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873625-35.stm">picked up the endorsement from the <em>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</em></a>. The paper said Clinton has an antiquated view of America and that she's &quot;doing the work of Republicans&quot; by attacking Obama. Industrial Western Pennsylvania should be a Clinton stronghold, so this endorsement does not bode well. Mix that in with an <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/16/msnbc-indiana-rep-carson-backs-obama/">Indiana superdelegate for Obama</a> and rumors of a few others coming down the pipeline today, and today is looking bleak for Clinton in the endorsement category.</p>
<p><br />But all is not lost! Clinton <a href="http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7506">picked up two New Jersey add-on delegates</a>. No surprises here: They're from New Jersey, which, as we've discussed, is a state Clinton won. But delegates are delegates, and Clinton now has two more.</p>
<p>The only other good news for Hillary is that <em>USA Today</em> ran a front-page story <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip">asking why</a> Obama says he doesn't take money from lobbyists, yet has fundraisers who do. On a Boss-less day, this may have found some traction on cable news and in tonight's debate. Instead, Springsteen's announcement that Obama is &quot;Born To Run&quot; for president will overshadow any negative coverage.</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em><em><strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a></strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:10:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_10.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-04-16T17:10:00ZThe Boss endorses Obama, and Clinton continues to lose traction in Pennsylvania polls.News and PoliticsHillary Deathwatch: Bruce Springsteen endorses Obama.2189282Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189282falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_11.html
<p> Barack Obama's &quot;bitter&quot; comment gave Hillary Clinton an opening. But the combination of hackneyed outrage and a fast counterpunch by Obama suggests that the &quot;scandal&quot; may not last. Take Clinton down 1.8 points to <strong>12.4 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>On Day 4 of the controversy, journalists scramble to measure how much people care. So far, signs point to <em>not really</em>. A new Quinnipiac poll <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1168">shows</a> Clinton's six-point lead in Pennsylvania holding steady. The poll summary cites &quot;no noticeable change&quot; in the numbers on April 12-13, when the &quot;scandal&quot; was entering full tilt. Then again, that was over the weekend, when Pennsylvania voters were busy venting their frustrations by shooting guns and going to church. Other surveys <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">vary</a>: A SurveyUSA poll shows Clinton up 14 points in the state—less than her 18-point lead last week. A Rasmussen poll puts her ahead by nine points, as opposed to five last week. An ARG poll shows Clinton jumping from a tie to a 20-point lead but merits skepticism, given that it's a robo-poll and a wild statistical outlier. Expect more thorough numbers later this week.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence is mounting: Clinton gets <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24109989#24109989">shouted down</a> when she brings up Obama's remarks at a forum; Pennsylvania booster in chief Gov. Ed Rendell <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/rendell_bitter.html">downplays</a> the significance of the comments, saying it won't cost Obama more than &quot;a couple of points at the margin&quot; (this could be more expectations gaming, but still); undecided superdelegates seem <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/15/ST2008041500049.html">largely unconcerned</a>.</p>
<p>Still, Clinton is pushing this angle hard. Some would say <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/14/how-you-overplay-pocket-aces.aspx">too hard</a>. Her campaign released a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXucMY7Dvk">new ad</a> showing the good citizens of Pennsylvania expressing how shocked, <em>shocked</em> they were to hear Obama calling them bitter. The spot feels awfully cardboard—almost on par with Ron Paul's famous <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8">New Hampshire ad</a>—and it's not helped by the fact that nearly every word out of the mouths of these &quot;citizens&quot; has also come out of Hillary's. (If you want to see an effective Clinton spot, watch &quot;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnaK4a2GU8o">Jewel</a>.&quot;) </p>
<p>And this is the problem with Clinton's response—it feels forced. Voters have a nose for BS, and even if they found Obama's remarks condescending, nothing reeks worse than manufactured outrage. Obama, meanwhile, has <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9601.html">mastered the counterpunch</a>. The last few days have given his rapid-response team a workout. Almost enough to persuade superdelegates previously concerned that Obama wouldn't be able to weather general-election attacks.</p>
<p>To step back for a second: The only way the &quot;bitter&quot; flap could save Clinton would be if it helped her persuade superdelegates to swing her way. So far, that doesn't seem likely. Given that Clinton needs to sway such a huge number of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates—<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/11/the-deal-with-add-ons.aspx">at least 70 percent</a>, in the most favorable scenarios—we're willing to say that this scandal doesn't have the necessary steam.</p>
<p>And just when the dropout drumbeat was starting to soften, another Clinton supporter, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1730974,00.html">suggests</a> that whichever candidate is &quot;trailing&quot; should drop out in June. &quot;Probably sooner,&quot; he added. (Frank also defended Obama on the &quot;bitter&quot; issue: He had &quot;a very legitimate point to make,&quot; he said, but it came out wrong.)</p>
<p>Remember how Obama decided not to hand out &quot;street money&quot; to Philadelphia party workers? At the time, we thought it might cost him support. But now Clinton is <a href="http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080415_Word_on_the_street__No_election__.html">following suit</a>. Gov. Rendell (he's everywhere!) pled poverty: &quot;Sen. Clinton has no street money,&quot; he said. &quot;We barely have enough to communicate on basic media. Sen. Obama has money to burn.&quot; </p>
<p>Maybe that's why the Clinton team is still <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/15/892216.aspx">pushing</a> its claim that a loss in Pennsylvania would be a &quot;significant defeat&quot; for Obama—despite the fact that it's been handicapped in favor of Clinton just about forever. And now, after the &quot;bitter&quot; flap, <em>no one</em> expects him to win. Ironic, eh?</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em><em><strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a></strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:15:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_11.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-15T19:15:00ZThe &quot;bitter&quot; flap fails to ignite.News and PoliticsHillary Deathwatch: The &quot;bitter&quot; flap fails to ignite.2189184Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2189184falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_12.html
<p>Barack Obama's &quot;bitter&quot; comment is just the gaffe Clinton needed to woo superdelegates. Her chances of winning the nomination jump 4.5 points to <strong>14.2 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>Hillary Clinton needed a miracle. She's down in pledged delegates, likely to lose the popular vote, and slipping on the superdelegate front. So, Barack Obama's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss">comment</a> at a San Francisco fundraiser—that bitter Pennsylvanians &quot;cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them&quot; in response to economic hardship—is as close to divine intervention as she could get. With Pennsylvania a week off, Clinton has just enough time to foment outrage and perhaps regain her <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html">formerly wide lead</a> in the polls. It's also as comprehensive a gaffe as Obama could have mustered: It's got elitism, guns, religion, immigration, and trade—just the controversy cocktail Clinton was waiting for.</p>
<p>The &quot;bitter&quot; incident serves one real purpose for Clinton: It strengthens her case to superdelegates. Clinton has already been painting a potential Obama nomination as a <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9564.html">disaster scenario</a>. This flap gives her fresh buckets and a new brush. Among her plausible arguments: Obama just lost Pennsylvania in the general. He alienated Reagan Democrats across the country. He squandered a major advantage over the less-religious McCain. His &quot;bitter&quot; comments—and the attitudes they represent—are just the tip of an <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9564.html">iceberg of vulnerabilities</a>. Clinton even <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clinton_Out_of_touch_and_like_Gore.html">compared</a> him to John Kerry and Al Gore (so much for that endorsement), who voters thought &quot;did not really understand, or relate to, or respect their ways of life.&quot; An Obama nomination, she can now argue, would be the worst kind of disaster—a repeat. </p>
<p>But will it be enough to overcome the daunting delegate math? No. She still <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/10/the-superdelegate-wall.aspx">needs to win</a> the rest of the states by fat margins and spark a mass superdelegate migration in order to secure the nomination. Even if the entire state of Pennsylvania is offended by Obama's remarks, she needs North Carolina, Indiana, and the rest to be equally miffed. And so far, Obama has been doing a fine cleanup job. He may not have chosen the right words, he says, but he was speaking elemental truths about economic hardship. (He's lucky Clinton's first salvo focused on the word <em>bitter</em>—the more defensible part of the statement—rather than the guns-and-religion part.) He also fired back, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_mocks_Annie_Oakley.html">mocking Clinton</a> for pretending she's &quot;Annie Oakley&quot; and portraying her attacks as dirty Washington politics: &quot;Shame on her,&quot; he said. In some small way, Clinton may be doing Obama a favor—he's proving to superdelegates that he knows how to weather controversy and fight back. </p>
<p>Some pundits <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_great_mistake_the_san_f.html">argue</a> that Obama's mistake is a game-changer that will hurt him more than the Wright controversy ever did. That may be true. But Hillary won't be the one who benefits. John McCain will. If this flap revives Clinton's candidacy—which took a beating last week after her husband's Bosnia resurrection—it will only be for the short term. The election fundamentals still weigh heavily against her—a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/11/the-deal-with-add-ons.aspx">mathematical fact</a> that makes Obama's screw-up, however damaging in the long run, little more than a speed bump on the road to the nomination.</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em><em><strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a></strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:31:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_12.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-14T16:31:00ZObama's &quot;bitter&quot; gaffe is just the miracle Clinton needed.News and PoliticsObama's &quot;bitter&quot; gaffe is just the miracle Clinton needed.2188972Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188972falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_13.html
<p>Bill Clinton turns the conversation back to his wife's biggest weakness, Obama ticks off the grass roots, and Hillary laughs again—always bad news—sinking her back down 0.5 points to 9.7 percent. </p>
<p>Hillary Clinton's Bosnia wound was <em>this close</em> to healing—the cast was off, the skin had closed, she was just starting to walk again unassisted—when Bill decided to rip it open again. <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/877489.aspx">Twice</a>! At a stop Thursday in Boonville, Ind., Clinton <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/10/876139.aspx">defended</a> his wife (unprompted, mind you) by saying, &quot;There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995.&quot; Never mind that she repeated the story several times, that the attention-getting March 17 speech occurred <em>in the morning</em>, and that she by no means &quot;immediately apologized&quot;—quite the opposite, it was <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/clinton_corrects_the_record.html">a full week</a> before she acknowledged that she &quot;misspoke,&quot; which is not the same as apologizing. Oh, and the trip was in 1996, not 1995. </p>
<p>Damage control, go! The Clinton camp hastened to explain Friday that it was &quot;her mistake and she takes responsibility for it.&quot; But the toothpaste was out of the tube. Bill has demonstrated an uncanny ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. A quick review: He compared Obama to Jesse Jackson; he called Obama's opposition to the war a &quot;fairy tale&quot;; he <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/04/02/BAVNVU2PJ.DTL&amp;type=printable">exploded</a> over Bill Richardson's Obama endorsement in a meeting with California superdelegates; and now he resurrects the most damaging story of the post-Feb. 5 race, if not the entire cycle. At this rate, he'll be caught in a janitor's closet with Geraldine Ferraro the day before Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>Luckily, Barack Obama is pissing off supporters, too. As California prepares its slate of delegates, both candidates are doing their best to <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/How_pledged_is_pledged.html">weed out potential defectors</a>. (Even pledged delegates can switch sides, remember?) Over the weekend, Clinton disqualified 40 people from the list. Obama, however, cut 900, angering a whole lot of Democrats. The campaign is now &quot;<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Relenting_in_California.html">revising</a>&quot; its list. In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Obama has decided <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-streetmoney11apr11,0,6553901.story">not to hand out &quot;street money&quot;</a> to local party bosses. Apparently, it's a tradition in Philadelphia politics to furnish your campaign workers with small contributions. There's a word for this practice in other parts of the country—<em>bribery</em>—but, hey, when in Rome … Obama's refusal could rankle supporters in a place in which he desperately needs their help. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/10/what-s-so-funny-hillary.aspx">another YouTube moment</a> (read: televised humiliation) for Hillary. When a reporter asked her whether Bill Clinton's $800,000 in speaking fees from the Colombian government might constitute a conflict of interest, she let loose the longest, most mirthful guffaw we've ever heard out of her. Because conflict of interest is <em>comedy gold</em>. She finally managed to answer the question: &quot;I am against the trade deal. It doesn't matter who talks to me.&quot; She should really stick to crying. </p>
<p>And because no omen goes unnoted at Deathwatch, we're obligated to mention that a Clinton campaign office in Terre Haute, Ind., <a href="http://www.wthitv.com/global/story.asp?s=8151421">caught fire</a> last night. Who needs tea leaves when we have flaming headquarters? </p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em><em><strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a></strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:34:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_13.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-11T17:34:00ZBill Clinton opens the old Bosnia wound.News and PoliticsBill Clinton opens the old Bosnia wound.2188742Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188742falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_14.html
<p>There's no other way to put it: Hillary Clinton is suffering from the soft punditry of low expectations. We explained yesterday how Hillary's chances <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2188627/">improve</a> if she's not actively taking damage, kind of like a first-person shooter. The corollary is that Barack Obama is like Google: He has to <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/google-shares-fall-another-sign/story.aspx?guid=%7BABA90ABC-F57F-4D8B-84B9-6E21E5849127%7D">continually outperform expectations</a> to keep his stockholders onboard. Treading water is not an option. So when both candidates pick up a superdelegate, the tie goes to Clinton. Factor in the $2.5 million she picked up from last night's Elton John concert, and we're giving her two-tenths of a point, bringing her to a <strong>10.2</strong><strong>percent</strong> chance of winning the nomination.</p>
<p>Today's news: Obama snagged the endorsement of Wayne Holland, the chair of the Democratic Party in Utah, while Clinton netted former Pittsburgh Mayor Sophie Masloff, for a <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/10/clinton-picks-up-pennsylvania-superdelegate/">gain of one superdelegate apiece</a>. Elton John's benefit concert for Clinton last night <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/hillaryclinton.uselections2008">raised $2.5 million</a> for her campaign, and Clinton <a href="http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080410_Clinton_ad_attacks_Obama_on_funds.html">went on the attack in Pennsylvania</a>, airing a 60-second radio ad calling out Obama for exaggerating his refusal to take money from oil companies. The Puerto Rico newspaper <em>El Nuevo Dia</em> <a href="http://www.elnuevodia.com/diario/noticia/politica/noticias/hillary_arranca_con_el_pie_derecho_en_puerto_rico/389531">reports Clinton up in the polls by 13 percentage points</a> in the territory, giving her some light at the end of the tunnel if she can hang on until June 1.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Colin L. Powell, the first secretary of state in the Bush administration, had <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/powell-praises-obama-but-doesnt-endorse/">kind words for Obama</a> on <em>Good Morning America</em> today, praising his handling of the Jeremiah Wright situation. A <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729500,00.html">new <em>Time</em> poll</a> puts Clinton up by six points in Pennsylvania—the <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1165">same margin as in yesterday's Quinnipiac poll</a>. Again, a significant jump for Obama from his double-digit deficit a few weeks back.</p>
<p>Press coverage isn't always a factor here at the Deathwatch, but it's worth pointing out a <a href="http://www.journalism.org/node/10514">Project for Excellence in Journalism report</a> on last week's news: &quot;The narrative was the debate over whether it might be time for Clinton to throw in the towel in the nomination fight. It was the single biggest campaign story line, accounting for 7% of all the campaign stories last week.&quot; That's hardly a gauge of whether Clinton will drop out. But it does suggest that the press is waking up to the bleak realities of her candidacy. Even if Clinton benefits from the soft punditry of low expectations in the short term, it's bad news in the long run.</p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em><em><strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a></strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:10:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_14.htmlChris Wilson2008-04-10T19:10:00ZClinton benefits from the soft punditry of low expectations.News and PoliticsThe soft punditry of low expectations.2188741Chris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188741falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_15.html
<p>In case you haven't noticed, the Hillary Deathwatch operates a lot like the health meter in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gears_of_War">Gears of War</a>. As long as you're not getting shot at, your health goes up. In Hillary's case, nothing too crazy happened in the past 24 hours—a solid performance at the Petraeus hearing, a slight post-Penn morale boost, and a superdelegate regained. Which, in total, bumps Clinton up 0.1 points to a flat <strong>10 percent </strong>chance of winning the nomination. </p>
<p>Clinton and Obama showed off their grilling skills at yesterday's Senate hearings with Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker but didn't offer much more than their usual bleak assessments. Clinton drew contrasts with John McCain, saying she &quot;fundamentally&quot; disagreed with his assessment that troop withdrawals are irresponsible—but stopped short of her &quot;willing suspension of disbelief&quot; remarks last time. Spoken like a true future majority leader. </p>
<p>Obama, trying hard to look involved, gets points for pushing the two men on what sort of qualified progress they'd be satisfied with and tosses out &quot;30,000&quot; as a possible troop-level goal to see if they bite. They don't. </p>
<p>The gist of the hearing: We're going to maintain current (or near-current) troop levels through the end of Bush's administration. Neither Democratic candidate appears to benefit more than the other. Obama gets to keep playing the war authorization card, certainly. But Petraeus' testimony raises questions about whether Obama could realistically pull out all combat troops within 18 months. </p>
<p>It's Day Three A.P. (after Penn), and the question now is, How gone is he really? A piece in the <em>Observer</em> <a href="http://www.observer.com/2008/day-one-take-two">suggests</a> he's been relegated to just-another-adviser status. As much as the shake-up stokes rumors about the campaign crumbling, Penn's demotion seems to have boosted morale, or what remains of it. Staffers argue that this will let Clinton take more-liberal stances—then again, how does she get more liberal than universal health care, restructuring NAFTA, and creating a &quot;poverty czar&quot;? </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Obama appears to be inching toward opting out of public funding for the general, despite previous statements (&quot;promises,&quot; according to McCain) that he would accept the funds if his opponent did. At a fundraiser last night in Washington, D.C., Obama called his money machine &quot;a parallel public financing system&quot; that lets small donors &quot;have as much access and influence&quot; over the campaign as wealthy ones. McCain will cry hypocrisy, especially now that he's <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9140.html">taking the first steps</a> toward matching funds. Hillary might mention it, too—although that would acknowledge the possibility that Obama makes it to the general, which is still a no-no. Chances are this will hurt Obama in the short run but help him in the end. </p>
<p>In other news, Clinton gets a superdelegate! Or, rather, regains one she lost before. When California Rep. Tom Lantos died, it reduced Clinton's delegate count by one. His replacement, Jackie Speier, <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/speier-to-fill-lantoss-seat-2008-04-09.html">won</a> a special election yesterday with 78 percent of the vote. More importantly, she is a <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8858756?nclick_check=1">Clinton supporter</a>. That brings the <a href="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegate-history-tracker.html">number of superdelegates Clinton has netted</a> since the week of March 4 to … five? Six? Obama has netted at least 28 in the same period, closing Clinton's superdelegate lead to 24, according to <a href="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegate-history-tracker.html">DemConWatch</a>. If (when) that lead vanishes entirely, Clinton will have some explaining to do if she wants to sway new superdelegates. </p>
<p>Tonight, Elton John performs at a fundraising event at Radio City Music Hall. Here's his chance to crowd-test the inevitable Clinton version of <em>Candle in the Wind</em>. </p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">click here</a>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>. Send your own prognostications to </strong></em><em><strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a></strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:11:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_15.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-09T18:11:00ZClinton turns in a solid performance at the Petraeus hearing.News and PoliticsClinton turns in a solid performance at the Petraeus hearing.2188627Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188627falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_16.html
<p>An opportunity to grill Gen. Petraeus in the Senate, a favorable correction on her hospital story, and a bright new pollster bump Clinton's electoral chances up 0.4 points to <strong>9.9 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>The spotlight today is on Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, who return to the Senate after seven months to update senators on progress in Iraq. But just as much attention will be focused on the three presidential candidates, who have no doubt been practicing their scowls in the mirror. Expect intense skepticism from both Clinton and Obama, but nothing on par with Clinton's inflammatory &quot;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuWBt1VZqHg">willful suspension of disbelief</a>&quot; comment.</p>
<p>So, remember the story Clinton was telling about the uninsured pregnant woman in Ohio who died after she couldn't pay a $100 fee that turned out to be false? <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/07/clinton_told_true_tale_of_woe.html">It's actually true</a>! The woman's aunt told the <em>Washington Post</em> yesterday that while her niece did get care at the O'Bleness Hospital, which had initially <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?ex=1365134400&amp;en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=all">contested</a> the story, she was turned down at another hospital since she couldn't pay the fee. Vindicated!&nbsp;(Well, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/08/white-lies.aspx">sort of</a>.) What's amazing is that Clinton couldn't get confirmation <em>before</em> telling the story—or before admitting last week that the story wasn't true, when it in fact was. What's worse, being wrong or being wrong about being wrong? </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Clinton's camp is treating Mark Penn's resignation like morning in America. His replacement, pollster Geoff Garin, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08clinton.html?_r=1&amp;ref=politics&amp;oref=slogin">charms the pants off</a> the <em>New York Times</em> today, promising a new direction for the campaign. Compared with Penn, this guy is George Clooney. Today on CNN, Clinton <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/08/clinton-says-penn-controversy-won&acirc;t-be-damaging/">turned Penn's departure</a> into a shot at Obama's economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, who is still with the campaign after the flap about downplaying Obama's NAFTA plan to Canadian officials. She didn't mention that Penn is, as well. But the story ain't over: The Obama campaign hosted a conference call with James Hoffa, pushing the Clintons to dismiss Penn altogether.</p>
<p>Clinton also led the way yesterday in <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/ts_nm/usa_politics_clinton_dc">calling for a boycott</a> of the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. Obama has <a href="http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/02/obama-says-hes-hesitant-to-make-beijing-olympics-site-of-political-protest/">said</a> he's &quot;hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together.&quot; This is old territory for Clinton—she was the one to tell Beijing in 1995 that &quot;women's rights are human rights&quot;—and she's smart to get out front, given how much political oxygen the Olympics will consume in the coming months. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the polls are still conspiring against Clinton. A <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1165&amp;What=&amp;strArea=;&amp;strTime=120">new Quinnipiac poll</a>—considered to be one of the more reliable surveys—puts Clinton at 50 points in Pennsylvania, with Obama trailing at 44. That's three points narrower than the last survey, in late March, which had Clinton at 50 and Obama at 41. Meanwhile, Obama looks stronger than ever in North Carolina; a Public Policy Polling survey has him <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_ppp_north_carolina_dems_1.php">leading Clinton by 21 points</a>. Bill must regret saying that North Carolina is a <a href="http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/567422.html">must-win</a> for Hillary. </p>
<p>On the superdelegate front, Clinton picks up a newbie—<a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1728617,00.html">a land commissioner from Arkansas</a>. No surprise there—she now has 11 of the state's 12 supers. A Montana superdelegate endorsed Obama yesterday but then <a href="http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=8130332&amp;nav=menu227_7">retracted</a>, saying state party rules prevented her from endorsing in a contested race. That hasn't stopped <a href="http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/">three other Montana supers</a> from going for him. But one of them, Jeanne Lemire Dahlman, pulled a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2188151/">Corzine</a> and reserved the right to switch to Clinton if she wins the popular vote.</p>
<p>Tomorrow: the Petraeus aftermath!</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></em></strong></p>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:16:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_16.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-08T18:16:00ZThe hospital story was right! And other good news for Clinton.News and PoliticsHillary Clinton Deathwatch: The hospital story was right! And other good news for Clinton.2188508Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188508falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_17.html
<p>Just before Texas' and Ohio's primaries, Mark Penn <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintoncamp3mar03,0,5417931.story?page=1">told the <em>Los Angeles Times</em></a> that he wasn't actually in charge of the Clinton campaign. He was just a high-profile &quot;outside message advisor,&quot; he said—but nobody believed him. Many within the Clinton brain trust suggested Penn was trying to save his own skin as the campaign went down in flames, since it was his strategy that torched Clinton's hopes in the first place. Now that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/us/politics/07hillary.html?_r=1&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin">he has left the campaign</a>, Clinton can shake free of his failed strategy, campaign in the remaining states on a platform of experience and emotion, and convince superdelegates that she's turned the page on her past failures. As a result, we're bumping her chances of winning up by <strong>0.5 percentage points</strong>.</p>
<p>Penn stepped down from his role as chief strategist yesterday, three days after it was revealed that&nbsp; <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html">he met with the Colombian government</a> to help broker a Colombia-U.S. trade deal that is too free trade-y for Hillary Clinton's taste. Ostensibly, Penn met with Colombia as the president and CEO of his PR firm—but Penn's and the firm's bond with the Clinton campaign was too tight to ignore. Clinton reportedly paid Penn $13 million for his services—an amount you don't pony up if the recipient is working against your interests in his down time.</p>
<p>For Deathwatch purposes, Penn's dismissal is good news for Hillary. Among the high-level staffers—who often butted heads with Penn—it will boost morale. (Even after Texas and Ohio primary wins, one anonymous senior adviser <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621_pf.html">told the <em>Washington Post</em></a>, &quot;A lot of people would still like to see him go.&quot;) Penn's speedy exit also allows Clinton to look even more resolute in her opposition to trade deals that don't primarily benefit American workers. If she spins it right, this should help in Pennsylvania and Indiana.</p>
<p>We should caution that Penn isn't completely exorcised. He &quot;will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign,&quot; according to campaign manager Maggie Williams. If Penn still has Hillary's ear, then Clinton can't completely break free from his campaign advice. And remember, as <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9409.html">lauded a strategist</a> as Penn was, his campaign advice &nbsp;led Hillary to columns like this. When you dump the dead weight overboard, you can't circle back once night falls, retrieve it from the ocean, and whisper sweet nothings to it in secret. On the whole, though, the Penn departure is a healthy one for Clinton's pursuit of the Holy Grail.</p>
<p>For Clinton, more good news came out of yesterday's talk-show circuit. Before the Penn story consumed the political press, Virginia Sen. (and superdelegate) Jim Webb said that he has no problem <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/superdelegates.html">waiting to endorse a candidate</a> until after all the states have voted. Webb is a respected, high-profile freshman senator, and other rookie congressmen may follow his lead. (Half of 2006's new congressional Democrats <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9377.html">haven't endorsed Clinton or Barack Obama</a>.) The longer superdelegates hold out, the more time Clinton has to wine and dine them.</p>
<p>Speaking of superdelegates, Clinton has once again seen an uncommitted super mosey over to Obama. A Montana state legislator, Margaret Campbell, is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/us/politics/07caucus.html">expected to endorse Obama</a> on Monday—continuing his dominance among superdelegates since Feb. 5. Because of the <a href="http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter">daunting math</a> confronting Clinton, it's unlikely that she'll grab a significant number of superdelegate endorsements until after Pennsylvania—and that's the best-case scenario. That still leaves two weeks for Obama to own the endorsement headlines. Mark Penn, back in his chief strategist days, wouldn't have been pleased about that.</p>
<p><strong><em></em></strong></p>
<p>For a full list of our Deathwatches, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:44:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_17.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-04-07T15:44:00ZHillary's chances are on the rise after she finally gets rid of faulty Penn.News and PoliticsThe Hillary Clinton Deathwatch.2188400Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188400falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_18.html
<p>An ill-timed trade meeting by Clinton's strategist, a 2-to-1 fundraising gap, and a crowd-pleasing <em>Leno</em> appearance shake out to a 0.2-point drop to <strong>8.8 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>Ruining Clinton's breakfast today is a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news">report</a> that chief strategist Mark Penn met with Colombian officials Monday to discuss a <strong>free-trade deal</strong> that she opposes. After the fuss Clinton raised over Austan Goolsbee and NAFTA, this is likely to dog her, even though Penn was representing his PR company, not the campaign. Penn has been a walking headache for Clinton ever since he <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintoncamp3mar03,0,341905,full.story">distanced himself</a> from the campaign's screw-ups in the <em>Los Angeles Times</em> last month. Yet he keeps his job, along with his <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/mark-penns-firm-paid-4_n_85192.html">generous salary</a>. </p>
<p>Clinton spends the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s death in Memphis, Tenn., where she'll propose creating a Cabinet position called &quot;poverty czar.&quot; She might consider making it a campaign position, too. After Obama released his March <strong>fundraising</strong> figures yesterday—$40 million—word leaked that Clinton's number was <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWBT00870020080403?feedType=RSS&amp;feedName=politicsNews">more like $20 million</a>. Money isn't everything—just look what happened in Ohio and Texas, where Obama outspent Clinton—but Obama's fundraising superiority continues to turn heads. </p>
<p><strong>Polls</strong> today are a mixed bag for Clinton. A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?_r=2&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin"><em>New York Times</em>/CBS survey</a> shows Obama's national lead over Clinton shrinking. The poll puts him just ahead of her, 46 percent to 43 percent. (Read the PDF <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080403_POLL.pdf">here</a>.) But <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/In408rel.html">she's up</a> in Indiana 49 percent to 46 percent, according to the <em>South Bend Tribune</em>; an American Research Group poll has her leading by an impressive 53 percent to 44 percent. Plus, Obama's favorability rating has dropped seven points to 62 percent, per the <em>NYT</em> survey. </p>
<p>Clinton's favorability rating, meanwhile, continues to languish at a career low of 38 percent, according to the same poll, inspiring what First Read <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/04/858697.aspx">calls</a> her new &quot;likeability tour.&quot; Clinton appeared on <em>The Tonight Show</em> yesterday, cracking wise about Los Angeles &quot;sniper fire&quot; and softening up the audience with stories about health care failures and job losses. (Leno must relate; he's getting replaced by Conan in 2009.) Her appearance on <em>Ellen</em>—which has somehow become the talk show of choice for political image-buffing—airs Monday. </p>
<p>Remember how Gov. Jon Corzine <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2188151/">hinted</a> that he would switch to Obama if Obama won the popular vote? Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha seemed to echo his sentiment yesterday, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/murtha-clinton-cannot-win_n_94874.html">telling</a> the Huffington Post that Clinton can't win the nomination without the popular vote. Murtha, a Clinton supporter, predicted a double-digit win by Clinton in the Keystone State, although her campaign is <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/03/not-so-great-expectations.aspx">tamping down expectations</a>. </p>
<p>Today could also be the day Clinton chooses to release her 2000-2006 tax returns, which her campaign said would happen this week. It's hard to see the disclosure <em>helping</em> Hillary—it's either bad news or no news—but at least it gets the transparency hawks off her back. </p>
<p>Only 18 days till Pennsylvania! </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:56:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_18.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-04T21:56:00ZClinton's chief strategist causes more headaches.News and PoliticsClinton's chief strategist causes more headaches.2188260Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188260falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatch Widgethttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_widget.html
<p>Whether or not she realizes it, Hillary Clinton is on a slow march to her political doom. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9147.html">She's behind</a> &nbsp;in the popular vote and has fewer pledged delegates and primary victories than Obama; she's had only <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/02/852607.aspx">one superdelegate endorse</a> her since March 4; and she's <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">losing ground to Obama in Pennsylvania</a> polls at an alarming rate. </p>
<p><strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>Slate</em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1">started a Hillary Deathwatch</a> last week, and her chances of winning the nomination have already dropped by more than three points. Thanks to our staff of tech wizards, you can now take Hillary's sinking ship outside of the <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> bubble and spread it to the far corners of the Internet. Just click the &quot;get &amp; share&quot; button on the widget below and select the type of site in which you want to embed the widget. (There's a shortcut for Facebook users <a href="http://www.facebook.com/login.php?v=1.0&amp;api_key=df3a7866924b26180809c052458e2db6&amp;next=add%253fevt%253d40%2525253D1a2e9%25252c152%2525253D1%2526cs_email%253d%2526sessionId%253d47f6838623ce9806%2526placementId%253d47f652f7ca9825c5%2526fullScreenMode%253d0%25">here</a>.)</p>
<p>We'll update the widget with new content and fresh odds of survival every day. Clicking on &quot;Hillary Clinton Deathwatch&quot; will take you to that day's article.</p>
<p>Got suggestions on how to make it even better? E-mail us <a href="mailto:hillaryclintondeathwatch@gmail.com">here</a>.</p>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:42:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_widget.html2008-04-04T21:42:00ZEmbed Clinton's sinking ship on your blog, iGoogle, or Facebook page.News and PoliticsThe Hillary Deathwatch widget.2188300Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188300falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_19.html
<p> The mortar in Clinton machine's bulwark, once thought to be indestructible, continues to crumble as a once-faithful supporter hints that he might defect. Plus, more good fundraising news for the Obama camp brings Clinton to an even <strong>9 percent</strong> chance of survival.</p>
<p>On the face of it, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/854162.aspx">statement this morning on CNBC</a> that he reserves the right to defect if Clinton loses the popular vote sounds more inside baseball than headline news. But consider these factors: Corzine <a href="http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2007/04/02/190800">endorsed Clinton</a> more than a year ago as part of Clinton's initial sweep of superdelegates. (Yesterday was the anniversary of that announcement.) A defection by Corzine would mean the foundation is crumbling. Also, Clinton <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#NJ">won the New Jersey primary</a> by 11 points on Feb. 5. Jersey is in her backyard, and the fact that the governor would consider siding with the popular vote over the overwhelming opinion of his constituents won't go overlooked by other superdelegates from states she won. If Richardson is &quot;Judas,&quot; what would that make Corzine? </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Obama announced $40 million in donations to his campaign in March, including more than 200,000 first-time contributors, <a href="http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-march-fundraising-numbers/">according to the press release</a>. The Clinton campaign was reticent on their own figures, which likely won't become public until the campaign files with the FEC down the road.</p>
<p>Better for the Clinton campaign is how much traction its &quot;Obama can't win&quot; jingle is gaining. The words are emblazoned on the <a href="http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=NY_NYP&amp;ref_pge=lst">cover of today's <em>New York Post</em></a>, bannered on the <a href="http://drudgereport.com/">Drudge Report</a>, and <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/854159.aspx">picked up</a> by MSNBC's First Read. Now that Obama's leads among pledged delegates and the popular vote appear to be insurmountable, look for the Clinton campaign to push this &quot;electability&quot; argument front and center. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164">new poll</a> from Quinnipiac University has Clinton ahead 50 percent to 41 percent in Pennsylvania, shaving a few degrees off the incline of Obama's uphill fight in the next-to-vote state. <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">Previous polls</a> had put Clinton ahead by double digits in this must-win for her campaign. (A new <a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/02/ppp_poll_obama_takes_lead_in_pennsylvania.html">Public Policy Polling survey</a> has Obama ahead by two points in AP, but this is <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/04/02/pa-poll-has-obama-ahead.aspx">an outlier</a> for now.) How much this matters depends whose narrative you buy. The Clinton camp says &quot;a win is a win.&quot; The Obama camp, meanwhile, is tamping down expectations, despite outspending Clinton at least 3-to-1 in the state. CW-meister Mark Halperin <a href="http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-what-hillary-clinton-has-to-do-to-really-win-pennsylvania/">says</a> anything less than a 10-point win for Clinton in the Keystone State means it's over for her. </p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>. Send your own prognostications to </em></strong> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><strong><em>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:56:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_19.htmlChris Wilson2008-04-03T17:56:00ZA big-time supporter threatens to defect to Obama.News and PoliticsA big-time supporter threatens to defect to Obama.2188151Chris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188151falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_20.html
<p> A high-profile Obama endorsement, a tightening race in Pennsylvania, and a big March fundraising gap dock Hillary 0.4 points, taking her down to <strong>9.5 percent</strong> on the Clintometer.</p>
<p>The big news: Democratic national-security guru and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton is <strong> <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080402/D8VPJL7O0.html">endorsing</a></strong> Barack Obama. Hamilton's backing isn't expected to invigorate voters, Kennedy-style (though you saw how that worked out). But as a member of the 9/11 commission and co-chair of the vaunted Iraq Study Group, he'll burnish Obama's foreign-policy credentials. (And maybe his old-folk cred, too—Hamilton is 76.) Too bad he's not a superdelegate. However, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who also <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvzT8keHzVS3YjP8BJDDrf64A_AwD8VPQV801">endorsed Obama</a> today, is. </p>
<p>Hamilton's home state, meanwhile, doesn't agree with him. According to <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=35417ff6-4985-47ce-8e1b-3fbe566d108d">a new SurveyUSA <strong>poll</strong></a>, Clinton leads Obama by nine points in Indiana. The state's May 6 primary is still a long way off, and this is just one poll, but a major Clinton victory there would hand the campaign a lifeline, even if Clinton still can't make up the pledged-delegate count. In Pennsylvania, Obama narrows the gap from 12 points to nine, according to a <a href="http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/04/clintonobama_race_narrows_but.html">Quinnipiac poll</a> with a 2.5-point margin of error. A <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">Rasmussen poll</a> puts the gap at five points. Again, there are&nbsp;still three weeks until April 22, but the chances of a Clinton blowout appear to be shrinking. </p>
<p>At the same time, some Dem bigwigs are easing off earlier <strong>procedural recommendations</strong> that favored Obama. A day after Nancy Pelosi <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89260071">said</a> Clinton should stay in the race if she wants to, Howard Dean says <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-superdelegates2apr02,1,7387579.story">superdelegates should vote as independent agents</a>—not a revelation, but the statement backs away from suggestions that superdelegates should ratify the pledged-delegate count. That said, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/reid_endorses_july_1_ultimatum.php">agreed</a> with Dean that superdelegates need to make up their minds by July 1. For Clinton, time good, deadlines bad. </p>
<p>Lastly: Less money, more problems. Early estimates put Obama's March <strong>fundraising</strong> total <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1727120,00.html">north of $30 million</a>. Not as hot as his $55 million February haul, but enough to dwarf Clinton's estimated $20 million for March. This despite what many consider Obama's worst news month yet. Meanwhile, Clinton's debts are reportedly as high as $9 million, not including her $5 million self-loan. Obama is already outspending her 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania—and he can afford to continue. There's a saying that candidates never drop out; they just run out of cash. </p>
<p><em><strong>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><em><strong>click here</strong></em></a><em><strong>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><em><strong>our first Deathwatch entry</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>
<p><em></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Send your own prognostications to </strong></em> <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com"><em><strong>hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</strong></em></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:25:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_20.htmlChristopher Beam2008-04-02T17:25:00ZStrong head winds put the Clinton camp back in irons.News and PoliticsStrong head winds put the Clinton camp back in irons.2188003Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2188003falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_21.html
<p> When you've got a 1-in-10 shot of winning the Democratic nomination, a day without any major screw-ups is a good one. After avoiding any major pitfalls—but also failing to lure Obama into any traps—Clinton has buoyed her chances of winning the nomination to <strong>9.9 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>The good news first: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187793/">Yesterday we relayed</a> that the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> was reporting that Obama was going to snag seven North Carolina <strong>superdelegates</strong> in the coming days. It turns out somebody jumped the gun. <a href="http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/butterfield_more_endorsements_coming">He'll get endorsements</a>, but we don't know how many. Meanwhile, in Mississippi, Obama <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Delegate_pickups.html">picked up two unexpected <strong>delegates</strong></a>, which tightens the vise on Clinton yet again.</p>
<p>Also, Clinton crawled back to within four points of Obama in today's <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/105952/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-Clinton-45-Latest-Update.aspx">national Gallup <strong>poll</strong></a>. Even better news: <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/day_of_week_effect_in_gallup_d.php">Enterprising poll watchdogs</a> discovered that Obama's Gallup numbers are routinely better when the polling window includes the weekend rather than only the workweek. Clinton and her pollster, Mark Penn, now have license to toss grains of salt all over Obama's resurgence in the polls. (<a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/re_2_dayofweek_effect_in_gallu.php">Late-breaking developments</a> may put an end to the salt-sprinkling, though.)</p>
<p>Nancy Pelosi offered a little more sunshine in Hillaryland when <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89260071">she told NPR's <em>Morning Edition</em></a> that Clinton should take the nomination fight to the <strong>convention</strong> if she feels like it. For Obama Democrats, that's like telling Clinton to take a knife and start stabbing the party's heart while she's at it.</p>
<p>But all good things must come to an end. Word leaked that Obama is <strong>outspending</strong> <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20080401_Obama_knocks_McCain__says_primary_fight_not_hurting.html">Clinton 3-to-1</a> in Pennsylvania, a problem for Clinton's campaign, which is already beset by rumors of financial trouble. Advertising usually leads to a surge in the polls, and Obama already trails Clinton <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">by a moderate 11 points</a> in the Keystone State. If she can't counteract Obama's advertising arsenal, she'll fall back to <strong>free media</strong> like <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/31/845479.aspx">her appearance on <em>Leno</em></a> on Thursday to charm her way into America's living rooms.</p>
<p>Worst of all, Canada has once again been injected into the Democrats' nomination fight. In <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Cleavers_bluntness.html">an interview with Canadian public radio</a> on Sunday, Missouri Rep. and Clinton <strong>superdelegate</strong> Emanuel Cleaver said he'd be &quot;stunned if [Barack Obama] is not the next president of the United States.&quot; Cleaver, who is black, said the African-American community would like it if he backed Obama, but he wouldn't feel right if he made the switch. He compared her to a football team that you know isn't going to win, but you root for it anyway. That'll inspire confidence.</p>
<p>And finally, from the Department of <strong>Bad Omens</strong>, Clinton <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/yo-adrian-clinton-has-a-new-theme-song/">announced a foolish new theme song</a>. It's the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMm99pHMR5Y">famous score</a> from <em>Rocky</em>. Only problem: Rocky loses to Apollo Creed at the end of the first film.</p>
<p><strong><em>For a full list of our Deathwatches, </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162248/landing/1"><strong><em>click here</em></strong></a><strong><em>. For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </em></strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/"><strong><em>our first Deathwatch entry</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:23:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/04/the_hillary_deathwatch_21.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-04-01T18:23:00ZSlow news is good news for Clinton.News and PoliticsThe Hillary Clinton Deathwatch.2187886Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2187886falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/03/the_hillary_deathwatch.html
<p> <strong><em>UPDATE: Clinton's chances of winning have already gone up 0.2 percent since we wrote this. </em></strong> <strong><em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187886/"><strong><em>Click here</em></strong></a></em></strong><strong><em> for the latest Deathwatch odds.</em></strong></p>
<p>Lots of Clinton news over the weekend, not all bad—but bad enough to dock her another 0.6 points in the Rodhameter, bringing her chances of winning to <strong>9.7 percent</strong>. </p>
<p>Roughest of all is the latest national Gallup <strong>poll</strong>, which <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx">gives</a> Obama a margin-of-error-busting lead of 10 points—his largest this year. Rather than destroying him, maybe the Jeremiah Wright flap only made him stronger (in the short term, at least). That, or <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Cashstrapped_Clinton_fails_to_pay_bills.html">Bosnia is the new <em>macaca</em></a>.</p>
<p>But Clinton soldiers on. She <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901909.html?nav=rss_politics">vowed</a> to the <em>Washington Post </em>on Saturday that she would <strong>continue to the convention</strong> in August. We would take her word for it, if promising to push on weren't a <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/30/162324/643/888/487282">frequent predictor of doing just the opposite</a>. Meanwhile, Obama <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/30/AR2008033000209.html">ratcheted down</a> the &quot;Hillary must go&quot; rhetoric, saying she can stay in the race as long as she wants. Smart move to soften the drop-out drumbeat, even if he himself never called for her to exit. Too much cockiness could stoke a backlash.</p>
<p>Clinton still <a href="http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/">leads</a> among <strong>superdelegates</strong>, 250 to 217, but Obama continues to close the gap. Today, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/31/klobuchar_endorses_obama.html">endorses</a> Obama—the 64<sup>th</sup> superdelegate to swing his way since Feb. 5. (Clinton has <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4454683">lost at least eight</a> in that same period.) Everyone saw it coming, but a nail is still a nail. Make that another prominent white woman (on top of Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius) who doesn't think Hillary should be the nominee. Meanwhile, the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hps_us_whats_newshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news">reports</a> that Obama has seven North Carolina superdelegates lined up to endorse. </p>
<p>Things look equally dire on the <strong>financial front</strong>, as the Clinton campaign <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html">struggles to pay its bills</a> in a timely fashion. As the <em>Politico</em>'s Ken Vogel reported over the weekend, &quot;If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million,&nbsp;she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.&quot; That the unpaid bills <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html">include health insurance costs</a> doesn't help.</p>
<p>But, hey, at least Clinton can make the case that she won big states like <strong>Texas</strong>, right? Sadly, no. Final numbers are still trickling in from the district and county conventions Texas held on Saturday (Step 2 in the state's electoral freak show), but it looks like Obama <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8VO92LO0">won the day</a>—and, by extension, the state's March 4<sup></sup>vote. Clinton netted five delegates in the primary, but Obama's estimated nine-delegate net in the caucus puts him ahead of her. Clinton will continue to say she won Texas, but if you're talking about delegates, she didn't. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, violence in <strong>Iraq</strong> intensified—then <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033100644.html?hpid=topnews">cooled</a>—as the Maliki government cracked down on Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad. For Hillary, the Iraq imbroglio is double-edged. On the one hand, Clinton loves her a national-security debate. But on the other, it steers discussion back to that pesky 2003 authorization vote. Last time we checked, Clinton was <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/06/operation-afghanistan.aspx">nudging the convo</a> away from Iraq and toward Afghanistan, the invasion everyone can agree on. </p>
<p>So, with a dip in the polls, another superdelegate lost, mounting debt, and ugly numbers in Texas, the outlook in Hillaryland remains bleak. On Saturday, Clinton compared the race to a basketball game: &quot;You know, we are in the fourth quarter and it is a close contest. We are running up and down. We are taking shots.&quot; The metaphor would work if she mentioned that Obama <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/primaries/">is up by 124 points</a>, he has the ball, and Clinton has been missing shots all quarter. All she has now is hustle. </p>
<p><em><strong>For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit </strong></em><strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a><em>.</em></strong></p>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:06:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/03/the_hillary_deathwatch.htmlChristopher Beam2008-03-31T17:06:00ZClinton&nbsp;vows to stay in the race despite financial woes, more Obama endorsements, and bad news from Texas.News and PoliticsThe Hillary Clinton Deathwatch.2187793Christopher BeamDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2187793falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/03/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.html
<p> Friday was not kind to Hillary Clinton. Based on Deathwatch's top-secret morbidity formula, Hillary tanked on four metrics today, reducing her chances of winning the nomination by 1.7 points to <strong>10.3 percent</strong>.</p>
<p>The nastiest news for Clinton is in <strong>the polls</strong>. She has drifted eight points behind Obama in a national <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx">Gallup survey</a>—the first time that she has trailed Obama by a statistically significant margin since the Rev. Wright imbroglio. Every point she loses in the national polls pushes her a bit closer to Davy Jones' locker.</p>
<p>In Pennsylvania, she suffered a setback in her efforts to win <strong>endorsements </strong>and <strong>superdelegates</strong> when Sen. Bob Casey <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/the-casey-endorsement/">endorsed Obama</a> even though he said he was staying neutral in the race. Casey comes from a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/28/family-man.aspx">long political lineage</a> that is well-known in the eastern part of the state and among Catholic Pennsylvanians. Rubbing salt in the wound, Obama said he didn't even court Casey's support—he entered the House of Obama on his own volition.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Sen. Patrick Leahy—an Obama supporter—<strong> <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/28/america/Clinton-Leahy.php">called for Clinton's withdrawal</a></strong> yesterday but then removed his foot from his mouth and <a href="http://thepage.time.com/statement-from-vermont-sen-leahy/">backed off the assertion</a> today, saying it's a decision &quot;that only she can make.&quot; Even though he dialed back his original statement, it adds another high-profile voice to the growing din that Clinton is doing more harm than good by sticking around. Chris Dodd—another Obama devotee—has <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/onair/transcripts/080327_dodd_chris.htm">made similar comments</a>.</p>
<p>Two statements from two head honchos are also draining Clinton's momentum. Both <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/28/dean-can-talk-after-all.aspx">Howard Dean</a> and <a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/28/gore-thinks-dem-nomination-will-be-set-before/">Al Gore</a> said they expected the nomination to be <strong>decided before the convention</strong>. Pressure from the top will likely push superdelegates to side with Obama or Clinton before August. Hillary's political clock is ticking.</p>
<p><em>For a primer on Hillary's sinking ship, visit <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/">our first Deathwatch entry</a>.</em></p>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:28:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/03/the_hillary_deathwatch_2.htmlChadwick Matlin2008-03-28T21:28:00ZA great day for Obama means a nasty day for Hillary.News and PoliticsThe Hillary Clinton Deathwatch.2187679Chadwick MatlinDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2187679falsefalsefalseThe Hillary Deathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/03/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.html
<p> Hillary Clinton is as good as dead. This became the consensus over the past week, when the media awoke en masse to the dual reality that 1) Clinton can't close the pledged-delegate gap and&nbsp;2) Obama has her beat in the popular vote. But the Clinton campaign shows <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">no signs of slowing</a> —she said herself she's prepared to compete for <a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/25/clinton-sees-fight-continuing-for-the-next-three-months/">at least three more months</a>. So the question now is not just &quot;How dead is she?&quot; but &quot;When will she realize it?&quot;</p>
<p>In the tradition of <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>'s <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2078448/">Saddameter</a> (gauging the likelihood of invading Iraq), the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/10858/">Clintometer</a> (measuring the chances of a Lewinsky-related ousting), and the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162289/">Gonzo-meter</a> (charting the attorney general's demise), we bring you the<strong> Hillary Deathwatch</strong>, a daily update on Hillary Clinton's dwindling chances of winning the Democratic nomination.</p>
<p>To start off, we're putting her odds at a generous <strong>12 percent</strong>. (Last week, a Clinton campaign official <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html">gave her</a> one-in-10 odds.) At the moment, polls indicate that Obama has survived the Jeremiah Wright flap (for now). Clinton's Bosnia blunder has metastasized from a headache into a five-day circus. Bill Richardson finally climbed down from his fence onto Obama's side. And a Michigan court yesterday <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/26/politics/horserace/entry3971086.shtml">deemed</a> the state's Jan. 15 primary unconstitutional and declined to order a revote, effectively smothering the last glimmer of hope for a <em>deus ex Michigana </em>bailout. Meanwhile, a <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx">new poll</a> puts her favorability rating at 37 percent—its lowest since March 2001.</p>
<p>That said, Clinton does have a shot. A heroic margin of victory in Pennsylvania and every subsequent primary, an implosion of the Obama campaign, a sudden mass epiphany on the part of superdelegates, or some combination of the three could lead to a Clinton nomination. But to be honest, we don't expect Hillary's chances to climb much higher than 20 percent. Hence the sinking ship.</p>
<p>We'll adjust Clinton's odds as polls waver, surrogates resign, superdelegates bail, and, of course, voters vote. We'll also keep an eye on indicators like fundraising, political futures, media coverage (always reliable), and the windchill factor in Scranton, Pa. Check back every day for updates, and send your own prognostications to <a href="mailto:hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com">hillarydeathwatch@gmail.com</a>.</p>
<p><strong><em>Hillary's prognosis has already changed. Get daily updates to the Hillary Deathwatch </em></strong><strong><em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/3944/cp=2162248&amp;">here</a></em></strong><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:47:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2008/03/the_hillary_deathwatch_3.htmlChristopher BeamChadwick MatlinChris Wilson2008-03-27T22:47:00ZGauging the odds that Clinton will win the nomination.News and PoliticsGauging the odds that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination.2187558Christopher BeamChadwick MatlinChris WilsonDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2187558falsefalsefalseGone Gone Gone, He's Been Gonzo Longhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/08/gone_gone_gone_hes_been_gonzo_long.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure: </strong>100 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2168318/">zero percent</a>)</p>
<p>It's pretty much a given that folks in the Bush administration tend to stay on far longer than they ought to, regardless of the damage they do to their offices, staffs, or reputations. And so the interesting question about Alberto Gonzales' resignation becomes: Why now? Why did he wait so obscenely long to step down, and yet not a moment longer? Certainly he gave no inkling to his thinking at his press conference this morning. But we at the Gonzo-Meter have our theories, only one of which is utterly self-involved.</p>
<p><strong>1)</strong><strong>It's all about us.</strong> There we were, for months on end, predicting the attorney general's imminent demise. Every day he stayed in office was another day when we had to explain why we were the ones with egg on our faces. As Gonzales suffered through furious bipartisan attacks, his own rank missteps, and the unraveling of his department, it seemed as if his function was simply to take the abuse. We determined early and often that he was the ultimate Bush administration punching bag. And that made us the suckers. So finally, in the midst of the pounding, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2168318/">we retired the Gonzo-Meter</a> with a rueful sigh. Gonzales stayed on two more months just to continue to prove us wrong. Even now, in bringing the Gonzo-Meter back, we're proven fatally wrong <em>again</em>—because we'd given up. Good Lord, we now have to renounce our own failure. The man is a tactical genius.</p>
<p><strong>2)</strong><strong>It's all about Congress.</strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2171072/">Gonzales last testified</a> before the Senate judiciary committee more than a month ago, on July 24. Afterward, he faced yet another barrage of criticism, this time for his careful parsing of the word <em>other</em>, as in, when he appeared to previously tell Congress that there had been no internal dissent about the National Security Agency's warrantless-wiretapping effort called the Terrorist Surveillance Program, he was actually talking about &quot;other&quot; surveillance activity. But did Gonzales cave in the face of those attacks? No! He stood strong, with the president's apparent full support. Now, in the doldrums of late August, his resignation is nicely separated from the charge that he's taking a hike because he lied. He can say he has simply served his president long enough and has joined the march out of Washington of other long-serving administration officials. And the administration <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?hp">can finally acknowledge</a> that Gonzales has become a &quot;distraction&quot; for the DoJ while continuing to insist on his &quot;unfair treatment.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>3)</strong><strong>It's all about Karl Rove.</strong> Rove, of course, is chief among the recently announced departures. And it now dawns on us that with his decision to leave went our pet theory for why the administration had been insisting that Gonzales stay. Back in April, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164827/">we approved</a> of <em>Newsweek</em>'s explanation that Bush thinks &quot;a Gonzales resignation would embolden the Dems to go after other targets—like Karl Rove.&quot; In other words, Gonzales stayed to provide a distraction from the real story—Rove's wrongdoings—by stumbling and bumbling for the camera. Now with Rove gone, Gonzales has perhaps outlived his usefulness. With nobody to cover for, he's expendable. Which means that it's time to go. Gonzales has always put politics above the law. It would hardly be a surprise if his resignation were of a piece with that.</p>
<p><strong>4) It's all about the Justice Department. </strong>Set aside the politics for a moment. Perhaps it simply became impossible for the Gonzales—the great delegator—to delegate anymore. Yes, there's still someone manning the phones at Justice, but the place is leaking lawyers like a busted toilet. In the last few weeks alone, we've witnessed the departure of Wan J. Kim, head of the civil rights division, and former voting rights section chief Bradley Schlozman. Add their names to a list of empty desks: Gonzales' own chief of staff, Kyle Sampson; DoJ's White House liaison, Monica Goodling; and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and his chief of staff, Michael Elston. In light of Gonzales' testimony alleging that these people did all of his work anyhow, without oversight or supervision, maybe he just got tired and decided to follow them out the door. Having to send your own faxes would get any attorney general down.</p>
<p>You can also look for reasons for the timing of the departure in the president's travel schedule. Today Bush visists New Mexico, bringing with him homestate Sen. Pete Domenici, who was central to the firing of former U.S. attorney David Iglesias, and who made an improper phone call to him in connection with an investigation. Then Bush heads to Seattle, the home of John McKay, another of the dearly departed. Or perhaps Gonzo waited until now to leave, when the rest saw it coming four and five months ago, because, as a colleague floated this morning, it opens up the chance for a recess appointment—one that the Senate is not asked to confirm. But it seems to us that there must be a line—albeit a fine one—between Bush administration hubris/cluelessness and utter insanity. Beyond that, what AG appointment could possibly be a <em>more </em>divisive choice than Gonzales? John Yoo does leap to mind.</p>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:27:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/08/gone_gone_gone_hes_been_gonzo_long.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-08-27T15:27:00ZAlberto Gonzales resigns. Finally.News and PoliticsWe told you Alberto was on his way out.2172855Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2172855falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/06/gonzometer.html
<p>It looks like yet another bad day for the embattled attorney general. While Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., may not be quite right in asserting that the Senate's failed no-confidence vote on Monday <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6119891">was in fact a no-confidence</a> vote anyhow, today's <em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/opinion/13wed1.html?ex=1339387200&amp;en=cea6a0c785a90544&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">New York Times</a></em> is right to point out that Gonzales has no supporters in the Senate, either. The editorial pages <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070613_Editorial___Gonzales_Hangs_On.html">have</a> <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6128530">not</a> <a href="http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/06/13/Opinions/U.s-Attorney.Firings.Dog.Gonzales.Bush-2914459.shtml">been</a> <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=618833">kind</a>. <a href="http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25829.html">Conservative critics</a> can't quite get past the fact that Bush is hanging on to Gonzales while letting Scooter Libby twist in the wind. It is just about universally agreed upon that Gonzales will go down in history as the attorney general who helped the president: 1) torture, 2) wreak havoc on civil liberties, 3) fire U.S. attorneys who didn't prosecute along preferred political lines, 4) demoralize the Department of Justice, 5) worsen Bush's already dismal relationship with Congress, and 6) relentlessly hector a man in the intensive care unit.</p>
<p>Not much good is happening inside the Justice Department, either. Monday's <em>Washington Post </em>revealed that, thanks to Gonzales and Co., a shocking number of the nation's newest <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001229.html">immigration judges</a> are a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001229.html?hpid=topnews">bunch of GOP hacks</a>. Yesterday, Bradley Schlozman, the former U.S. attorney for Kansas City who brought voter-fraud indictments against a liberal group just four days before the November 2006 election, in violation of department policy, <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/schlozman-clarification/">wrote to Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to &quot;clarify&quot;</a> that when he testified <em>10 times</em> last week that he had been &quot;directed&quot; to bring such indictments by the Election Crimes Branch of the DoJ's Public Integrity Section, he really meant that in fact he had never been directed to do so at all. Every single time he is asked about the U.S. attorney purge, Gonzales vows that he is <a href="http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1181639936130880.xml&amp;coll=3">staying on for the children</a>. He did so again yesterday. One of the ways we know the AG really, really likes children is that he let them <a href="http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17362920.htm">take over the running of the Justice Department</a>.</p>
<p>Yet more bad news: The U.S. attorneys scandal is beginning to focus attention on something even bigger than the AG's incompetence: The White House. Yesterday's document dump highlighted the extent to which Harriet Miers and Karl Rove were involved in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061202090.html">the earliest efforts to defuse</a> the firings through sheer spin power. Not surprisingly, former White House counsel Miers and Sara Taylor, former Rove political director, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/politics/main2922552.shtml">just got subpoenaed</a> in the effort to unearth why it was that&nbsp;the White House cared so darn much about a handful of federal prosecutors. One of the main reasons for the president to keep Gonzo was to use him as a human shield to absorb flak aimed at the White House. The shield is no longer working. </p>
<p>In all, another bad, bad day for the AG.</p>
<p>And so we are taking the Gonzo-Meter down to zero.</p>
<p>When we <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162289/">first launched this enterprise</a>, we truly believed that the sun rose in the east and gravity worked. We were wrong. As we have increasingly observed, most notably on the days the AG testified before Congress, some mystical alchemy provides that the worse he does, the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166975/">better his chances become&nbsp;of remaining in office</a>. At this point, just about nothing Gonzales does could cause the president to fire him. That will happen only if and when the president can make it look like he is not buckling under pressure. So we drop the Gonzo-Meter to zero, in the perverse hope that Bush might start to believe that ditching his AG is his own idea, not ours.</p>
<p>Barring that miracle, this is our last entry in the Gonzo-Meter. We've no doubt the scandal will only blossom and grow, and we'll keep watching it and reporting on it. But the laws of physics demand that we admit defeat. If we didn't, we would ourselves become little Alberto Gonzaleses—denying the bracing truth of the world in which we live. Instead, the three of us will promptly begin drinking at our desks, hitting on our summer interns, and setting grease fires in the office kitchen. The Gonzo-Meter was a bust, but we want to really test that we've got job security like he's got.</p>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:09:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/06/gonzometer.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-06-13T21:09:00ZGoing, going, Gonzo-Meter.News and PoliticsGoing, going, Gonzo-Meter.2168318Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2168318falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong> 40 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166557/">57 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Whatever Monica Goodling's House judiciary committee testimony may have obscured or confused <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166850/">yesterday</a>, she did clarify a few very important points regarding her former boss, Al Gonzales: He was, for instance, present at meetings and briefings about the U.S. attorney purge (i.e., he lied), he was involved in vetting the names on Kyle Sampson's list (i.e., he lied), and—bombshell—he did apparently attempt to square his recollection of the firings with hers, long after this scandal had broken (i.e., he lied again).</p>
<p>So, whatever else he may be—incompetent, clueless, in love with the president, suffering from crippling levels of memory impairment—the AG is pretty clearly now revealed to be a big, honkin' liar.</p>
<p>The old Gonzo-Meter might have responded to these revelations, and the resultant <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5962139">cries that Gonzales resign</a>, and the president's ridiculous assurance that the probe should stop <a href="http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=6564046&amp;nav=2KPp">so he can take care of</a> the problems himself, with a sharp upward spike. But, as we can now agree, the more we find out about what's gone wrong at the Justice Department, the more likely it seems that Gonzales will stay. The question isn't what we have already found out. It's how much more the Bush administration fears what we will find in the future.</p>
<p>So, we are dropping the meter to 40 today, with a sigh—but a bit of an admiring one. If we didn't live in Bizarro World, the front-page headlines blaring yet again that the attorney general lied would mean he was out. In Bush World, however, that calculus is reversed. Like a mountain goat on a heap of broken cans and old tires, Gonzales' footing looks, somehow, more sure than ever. </p>Thu, 24 May 2007 19:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-05-24T19:30:00ZGoodling brings only grief.News and PoliticsMonica Goodling brings the Gonzo-Meter grief.2166975Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2166975falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_2.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong>&nbsp;57 percent<br />(Previously:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166350/fr/flyout">50 percent</a>)</p>
<p><strong></strong></p>
<p>The Justice Department is blowing up. Or in any event, it should be. </p>
<p>Gonzales' folly is back on the front pages, in the form of Jim Comey's <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166213/">amazing Senate testimony</a> about Al's 2004 race to the hospital bed of former Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom he and former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tried to railroad into signing a reauthorization for the National Security Agency surveillance program, even though Ashcroft and Comey had decided it was illegal. Whew. Bush, in the wake of Comey's revelation, is <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">refusing to say</a> whether he was the one who sent Gonzales and Card to the hospital. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is predicting Gonzales' demise—not calling for it, but saying it's gonna happen. And the Senate Democrats are (finally) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700260.html?hpid=topnews">planning a no-confidence vote</a> on the attorney general.</p>
<p>In Bush logic, this may well get Gonzales a national medal or an airport in his name. He's such a patient whipping boy—much better than Karl Rove would ever be. And here's another smart rationale to explain why Gonzales stays, from reader Todd Strickland of Lakewood, Colo.: As long as the president sticks with Gonzales, &quot;he gives vulnerable Republicans (especially in the Senate) the opportunity to create some distance between themselves and an increasingly unpopular President on an issue that is not (quite) the war.&quot; On Thursday, Minnesota's Norm Coleman joined the list of Republicans who are asking Gonzales to step down. Maybe the administration planned all the U.S. attorney firings and consequent misfirings just to give the swing-district faithful a club with which to bash Bush over the head.</p>
<p>At this point, there's every reason to believe that Gonzales will never, ever leave office. When we kicked off our Gonzo-meter back on March 20, it seemed reasonable to assume that the attorney general had only a 45 percent chance of making it through the afternoon. If you look at the string of Gonzo-meter readings from that first week—and multiply out the probabilities—we guessed there was only a 6 percent chance he would last through Friday. Yet, somehow, he survived. In fact, if you take all our predictions from the past two months, the chances that Gonzales would have managed to avoid early retirement are on the order of one in a <em>quintillion </em>(1.59 &times; 10<sup>-18</sup>). </p>
<p><p>But we are undaunted, sort of.&nbsp;And so we inch up the Gonzo-meter, just a tad. If nothing else, we owe it to Jim Comey. Plus, we want to send an encouraging signal to Monica Goodling, who gets her day at the Senate next Wednesday. Monica, you're being blamed for some of the most dastardly doings at DoJ—the allegation that career attorneys (as opposed to political appointees) were <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/washington/12monica.html?_r=1&amp;hp=&amp;oref=slogin&amp;pagewanted=print">illegally hired and fired</a> based on their political-party affiliations. Did you really dream up the whole thing yourself? Did you really freak out about a government-funded public service announcement that played rap music to talk teenagers out of committing gun crimes? And don't you have something—lots!—to tell us about the U.S. attorney firings that we want to hear? We're all ears.</p></p>Thu, 17 May 2007 21:29:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_2.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-05-17T21:29:00ZThe Comey fallout.News and PoliticsGonzales and the fallout from Jim Comey's Senate testimony.2166557Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2166557falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_3.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:&nbsp;</strong>50 percent<br />(Previously:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166150">55&nbsp;percent</a>)</p>
<p>Here at the Gonzo-meter, we find ourselves longing for the days when we monitored the attorney general only for his special secret blend of craven incompetence. We find ourselves playing the game at a new level today, totting up instances of vile personal conduct. Gonzales is now the kind of guy who would <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166213/fr/flyout">harass a sick John Ashcroft</a> in the intensive care unit. And the kind of guy who suddenly remembers, less than 24 hours after Paul McNulty resigned, that absolutely every misfiring at the Justice Department during his own tenure was in fact <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070515/fired-prosecutors">McNulty's fault</a>.</p>
<p>We lower the meter to 50 percent, reluctantly, because we think that although Gonzales is proving to be Christmas in May for the Democrats, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/637ntzjr.asp?pg=1">that which might come after Gonzales</a> (special prosecutors, brutal confirmation hearings) looks even worse to the Bush administration. No matter how many Republicans call for Gonzales to step down (welcome, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051600804.html">Chuck Hagel</a>!), no matter how few people are left standing at DoJ, and no matter the &nbsp; <a href="http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/">seven-point jump at Intrade</a> today, it looks like Gonzales is not budging.</p>
<p>We noted <a href="http://www.slate.com2165987?nav=tap3">last week</a> that Gonzales' silly new rhetorical trick is to suggest that the Justice Department runs itself. It's built, he insists, to <a href="http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17234663.htm">withstand all of these resignations and departures</a>. The subtext here: National law enforcement is so trivial that even if my deputy, his deputy, and the deputy's liaison all quit, it hardly makes a difference. Wow. We beg to differ: If nothing else, the dramatic drop in DOJ personnel may explain why <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/leahy-gonzales-subpoena/">document production</a> has become such a hardship.</p>
<p>We continue to eagerly await the Senate testimony of Monica Goodling. We recognize, however, that if Gonzales survives this week's gruesome front-page headlines, he will survive whatever Goodling can dish out. Unless, of course, she arrives with evidence that her former boss loves to rip the heads off small woodland creatures. Even so, it's tough to know what more damage she can do.</p>Wed, 16 May 2007 20:02:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_3.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-05-16T20:02:00ZHow to measure the attorney general's yuck factor?News and PoliticsHow to measure the attorney general's yuck factor?2166350Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2166350falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_4.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:&nbsp;</strong>55 percent<br />(Previously:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2165569">77 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Gonzo-meters are only as good as the Gonzos they measure, and we confess that when we first launched this feature we underestimated the attorney general's taste for public humiliation. It's now amply clear that whatever contempt <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003205.php">serious attorneys</a> at the Justice Department, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/14/novak-gonzales/">Republican stalwarts</a>, and the <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070514&amp;s=wittes051407">national media</a> feel for Alberto Gonzales is more than matched by the contempt he feels for all of them. And as the days go by and it becomes clear that the AG thinks he has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10gonzales.html?ex=1336449600&amp;en=dedf01f5f8c53baf&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">won by losing</a>, we fear we have to back down from our prediction that he will leave anytime soon.</p>
<p>But there's one small blond reason not to fold up the meter just yet: Monica Goodling. Goodling, who has now been granted partial immunity for her congressional testimony, holds the bit of string that will either unravel the whole sweater, or not. It all depends on what she chooses to say. Nameless administration officials are telling <em> <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1178874299251">Legal Times</a></em> that Gonzales' survival isn't a certainty until after Goodling testifies. And as it becomes clearer that her own misconduct crossed the line from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/washington/12monica.html?ei=5090&amp;en=26ad5277c04e7880&amp;ex=1336622400&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss&amp;adxnnlx=1179148326-ax8wOVdCGsKGO5EKSUltdw">bad judgment into possible illegalities</a>, it becomes harder for her to testify, as did Kyle Sampson, that nothing really untoward happened at the Justice Department. </p>
<p>Marty Lederman has a great blog post <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/us-attorney-scandal-in-nutshell-upshot.html">here</a> outlining the real issues in the U.S. attorney scandal. It clarifies why the White House effort to cast Congress' investigation as a liberal-led fishing expedition is not quite right. But what or whom Congress catches is ultimately up to Goodling, or at least so it seems. We move the meter down to 55 percent because we're not sure that she can (or will) dish up anything good. But we are keeping the meter alive because, well, we don't plan to miss the show if she does. </p>Mon, 14 May 2007 20:12:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_4.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-05-14T20:12:00ZWaiting for Monica.News and PoliticsWaiting for Monica.2166150Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2166150falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_5.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:&nbsp;</strong>77 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2165350/">78 percent</a>)</p>
<p>If they were picking teams for anything—paintball, Pictionary, partisan politics, you name it—we think they'd look pretty much the way the teams are shaking out at the Justice Department in the U.S. attorneys melee.</p>
<p>At least to hear us in the media tell it, you have the Good Guys: a bunch of belt-and-suspenders, loyal, Republican, law-and-order guys on one side. And on the other side, you have the Hacks: a formerly all-powerful but increasingly ridiculous-looking team of dissemblers.</p>
<p>Even if you grant that the White House doesn't particularly care if the belt-and-suspenders crowd is grieving for the damage done to the Justice Department by Alberto Gonzales, you'd think they might care a little about how shameless they look in comparison. Come on Hacks! Let's see some De-fense!</p>
<p>Start with the Good Guys: They're led by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, whose <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2165567/">testimony today</a> before the House judiciary committee was as credible and straightforward as Gonzales' was weaselly and defensive. Comey had nothing to hide today (largely because he'd been totally sidelined in the early discussions of the U.S. attorneys plot and then exited the Justice Department). But he carved Gonzales' post-hoc assessments of the fired U.S. attorneys' flaws into tiny, little sushi-sized pieces, without ever breaking a sweat.</p>
<p>On his starting team are the ever-nobler Carol Lam, John McKay, Bud Cummins, David Iglesias, Daniel Bogden, and Paul Charlton, all fired prosecutors whose newly released <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=534">written responses to the House judiciary committee</a> read like a sonnet to prosecutorial good judgment, effectiveness, and independence and reveal their real chagrin at White House treatment that was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-testimony3may03,1,2222894.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&amp;track=crosspromo">shabby</a> at best and <a href="http://www.bellinghamherald.com/256/story/69630.html">blatantly threatening</a> at worst. </p>
<p>Now have a look at the Hacks. It's not pretty. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/washington/03attorneys.html?ex=1335844800&amp;en=f7f495103ddadb4d&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">Monica Goodling</a> suddenly faces the unsavory choice of either being granted immunity so she can rat out her bosses or being investigated for violating federal laws by only awarding prosecutor jobs to Republicans or Federalist Society members or her book club. As the judiciary committee subpoenas Karl Rove's hot hot hot e-mails, the White House continues to insist that a better, more reasonable alternative would be to let him chat with the committee in secret, off the record, perhaps over some Mochachinos at Starbucks. And Kyle Sampson, &quot;the Aggregator,&quot; looks like he plain old lied when he claimed to be following DoJ orders. Clearly neither Comey nor Comey's successor, Paul McNulty, nor Gonzales ever gave him much of an order. And leading the Hacks, there is, of course, Gonzales himself, whose cries of &quot;I don't recall&quot; are so pitiably unbelievable that law professor Frank Bowman is calling for Congress to impeach him on the <em>New York Times</em> op-ed page.</p>
<p>We've said it before: None of this need mean Gonzales is shipping back to Texas. More likely, it means he's Krazy Glued to his desk. As <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013938.php">Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo</a> observes, better the devil you owe …</p>
<p>And so, we're taking the Gonzo-Meter down today, but only to 77 percent.</p>Thu, 03 May 2007 21:56:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_5.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-05-03T21:56:00ZThe Good Guys vs. the HacksNews and PoliticsThe teams line up.2165569Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2165569falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_6.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:&nbsp;</strong>78 percent<br />(Last week: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2165159">76 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Certainly loads of Gonzales news today, thus undermining the principle that the presence of <a href="http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/REPOSITORY/705010407/1013/NEWS03">many</a>, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-wolfowitz1may01,1,1187000.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&amp;track=crosspromo">many</a>, <a href="http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/04/26/politicizing_government_service.php">many</a> other scandals might somehow drive the U.S. attorney imbroglio off the front pages. Turns out that even in the era of shrinking newspapers and smaller pages, there's still plenty of room in the A section for the attorney general.</p>
<p>First, for anyone still attempting to play &quot;pin-the-blame-on-the-decider&quot; at DoJ, we have today's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001526.html?nav=rss_politics"><em>Washington Post </em>revelation</a> that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had virtually nothing to do with the U.S. attorney firings. He claims he was misled about the extent of the White House's involvement in the process, which explains his earlier testimony. McNulty's story jibes perfectly with the news from <a href="http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm">Murray Waas at the <em>National Journal</em></a>:<em></em>It looks like Gonzales approved a secret order last year granting the wee &quot;puppies&quot; (Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling) extensive and perhaps unprecedented authority to go around firing people at the Justice Department. Only after the lawyers intervened with the view that allowing small children to sack people without supervision was perhaps unconstitutional was the requirement added that Gonzales actually sign off on the list, even if he neither read nor cared about who was on it. Goodling's attorney insists she was granted no such authority. McNulty was apparently deliberately bypassed. All of which still leaves Col. Mustard in the conservatory with the lead pipe to have decided on the actual firings.</p>
<p>So, why aren't we moving the meter up to 85, as our readers urge? Because as we keep insisting, the worse the news gets, the less the president and Gonzales are inclined to budge. Here's a <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-holtzman1may01,0,3365495.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail">nice little history lesson</a> laying out the costs of confirming a new AG. And lest you believe that the cost to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01corrupt.html?pagewanted=1&amp;ei=5088&amp;en=301d72e7b39b9fca&amp;ex=1335672000&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss&amp;adxnnlx=1178021124-2nztnLGh95f0AKQEII50hA">Justice Department</a>, staff morale, and public opinion outweigh all that, well, how to put this nicely? They don't care. </p>
<p>We do relish the fact that Gonzales is <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1177664678733">hitting the books hard again</a>. If it's really true that between now and May 10, &quot;Gonzales' days will be spent in much the same way they have been for most of the spring: preparing to defend himself before Congress,&quot; we have a <em>lot</em> to look forward to. By what strange trick of neurochemistry is it possible that the more you cram, the <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4735397.html">more you forget</a>?? </p>
<p>Stay tuned for former Deputy AG James Comey's testimony this Thursday. Recognize that even if he says it was Karl in the Oval Office with a lead pipe, it may not make a lick of difference. </p>Tue, 01 May 2007 19:29:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/05/gonzometer_6.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-05-01T19:29:00ZWhodunnit?News and PoliticsWhodunnit?2165350Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2165350falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure: </strong>76 percent<br />(Yesterday: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164911">76 percent</a>)</p>
<p>There has been <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/if_you_want_to_hear_despair_ta.html">a lot</a> <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/bush_behind_barricades.html">written</a> recently about the price George Bush pays for his extraordinary loyalty to his subordinates. He continues to embrace his old friend Alberto Gonzales, even as the number of members of his own party who express doubts about the attorney general and call for his ouster grows. The latest GOP Gonzales-basher is presidential candidate John McCain, who deftly turned the loyalty question around. &quot;I am very disappointed in his performance,&quot; Sen. McCain told Larry King. &quot;I think that out of loyalty to the president that that would probably be the best thing that he could do.&quot; Why is Bush clinging to a drowning man? Maybe because Gonzales won't let go. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, revelations about the fired U.S. attorneys continue. In his testimony before the Senate last week, Gonzales said that Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona, was fired because of &quot;his poor judgment in pushing forward a recommendation on a death penalty case.&quot; It sounded thin, but at least there <em>was a reason,</em> which was an improvement over those firings for which he couldn't seem to come up with any. But an alternative reason for Charlton's firing is gaining credibility. Charlton was investigating Arizona Republican Rep. Rick Renzi's role in a suspect land deal. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117746770608481484-srrsK50Cy6ieok4EIJGcFSnMnek_20070502.html?mod=blogs">According to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>, federal investigators met unexpected resistance from the Justice Department in getting approval to proceed. This delay appears to have pushed back the investigation until after the election, allowing the vulnerable Renzi to retain his seat. </p>
<p>Before the election, Renzi's top aide called Charlton, who properly refused to tell him about the status of the case. Charlton was fired a few weeks later. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has now asked Gonzales and the White House for all communications related to the Renzi flap. Now, if you think about the fact that Gonzales keeps insisting that he's staying put in order to do important DoJ business, both the Renzi dust-up and the impending testimony of his former deputy <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003106.php">James Comey</a> &nbsp;point in the opposite direction. How can the AG—who's missed several weeks of work cramming for his Hill testimony—possibly find time to mind the store when he's devoting whole days to tracking down documents and <a href="http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/04/26/news/042607dcagmeet.txt">apologizing to those he's wronged</a>? We leave the meter at 76 percent. Not because Gonzales is in less trouble, but because he still doesn't know it.</p>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:36:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-26T20:36:00ZLoyalty goes both ways.News and PoliticsLoyalty goes both ways.2165159Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2165159falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_2.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure: </strong>76 percent<br />(Yesterday: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164911">75 percent</a>)</p>
<p>One of us had a bag lost by US Airways recently, and the experience prompted a sudden and deep fellow feeling for the members of Congress who have tried to get to the bottom of the U.S. attorney firings: Throughout the lost-bag episode, there was zero accountability, insincere apologies, shifting stories, and mysterious technological glitches. There was also overwhelming existential doubt that anyone could even do a darn thing to improve the situation. Threats, inducements, praise, and sarcasm were as ineffective in locating that bag as they were in getting a straight story last week out of the attorney general. </p>
<p>Gonzales' disappointing performance before the Senate judiciary committee continues to reverberate among Republicans. Though the president claims his confidence in Gonzales &quot;increased,&quot; others in his party—notably others who actually watched the testimony—have had the opposite reaction. &nbsp;Republican angst grows. &quot;I think there's a huge credibility issue at the Justice Department,&quot; Norm Coleman, R-Minn., <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402178.html?hpid=topnews">said</a> today in the <em>Washington Post</em>. &quot;I continue, even after his testimony, to have grave doubts.&quot; </p>
<p>Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., no fire-breather, said:&nbsp; &quot;I think the attorney general is on a tightrope, and he and the president need to make a decision before very long.&quot; And Jim Bunning, R-Ky., a loyal Bush supporter told the Associated Press Gonzales' testimony had been weak and <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_LOYALTY?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">wondered</a> &quot;how long Alberto Gonzales can survive as attorney general. &quot;</p>
<p>Meanwhile, there's other bad news for the AG. He met today with Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who has accused Gonzales of lying to him about the replacement of former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Pryor's home state. The House judiciary committee has granted <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ONN8L80&amp;show_article=1">immunity</a> to former Justice Department White House liaison Monica Goodling, which might mean more explosive testimony that either contradicts Gonzales or undermines him. Of course, it is also possible she could mount a stirring defense in a way no one, including Gonzales, has yet to accomplish. But then, the House has also authorized a subpoena for former Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor.</p>
<p>We realize that so far, GOP opposition has not yet caused Gonzales to step down and that, if anything, it only seems to make the president more supportive. Nevertheless we're going to continue to embrace the realities of a world in which gravity operates, flowers bloom in the springtime, and the sky is blue and not green. So, we inch the meter up one point. We know he's going. We're just not certain he and the president know it yet.</p>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:50:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_2.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-25T19:50:00ZRepublican angst grows.News and PoliticsRepublican angst grows.2165037Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2165037falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_3.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong>&nbsp;75 percent<br />(Yesterday: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164827/">85 percent</a>)</p>
<p>So, here's what's going on: <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070424/D8OMKS481.html">Al says he's staying</a>. The <a href="http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/april/0424_bush_gonzales.shtml">president says Al is staying</a>. They love each other, and no amount of <a href="http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070424/NEWS81/70424012">GOP pressure</a> to break them up is going to come between them. In fact, like Romeo and Juliet, it seems that the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301938.html">more they are pushed</a> to break up, the stronger their love flourishes. </p>
<p>It's beautiful, really. Dysfunctional but beautiful.</p>
<p>Nobody (other than the president) seems to doubt that Gonzales totally blew it last week. And nobody seems to doubt that Bush is clinging to his AG out of some combination of <a href="http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/04/24/0424edag.html">personal loyalty</a>, <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/24/support_of_gonzales_affirms_power_play/">fear of looking weak</a>, and fear of the confirmation hearings and investigations that would follow if he were to back down. </p>
<p>At the same time, the <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1177331773466">momentum to get rid of the AG</a> is building, not lessening—probably something of a surprise to a White House that may have believed that this story would die with Gonzales' testimony, pretty much no matter what.</p>
<p>And sometimes, as more than one reporter has observed of late, the president's vote of confidence is a big old <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&amp;sid=aIrOuXO0wT2o&amp;refer=home">kiss of death</a>. Add also that the Justice Department seems to be <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1177331773466">hemorrhaging attorneys</a> at rather an alarming rate. And that other U.S. attorneys are <a href="http://dwb.fresnobee.com/24hour/front/story/3605457p-12889070c.html">newly afraid to do their jobs</a>. </p>
<p>While it's nice that Bush and Gonzales are in love, it's hard to believe that they aren't going to start seeing other people at some point. The damage Gonzales has wrought—to this administration, the Justice Department, and the GOP—has been considerable. So this looks to us like a game of appearances now. The president just needs to wait long enough to create the appearance that it was his decision to fire Al, not ours.</p>
<p>That may be a matter of weeks or of months. The question is, who will blink first, the president or the Gonzo-meter? (We still say he will.)</p>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:38:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_3.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-24T17:38:00ZLove is blind.News and PoliticsBush's love is blind.2164911Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2164911falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_4.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong>&nbsp;85 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164653">95 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Despite his unprepossessing performance before the Senate last week, Alberto &quot;I don't recall&quot; Gonzales lives to see another Monday. He even showed his face at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner over the weekend (we would have been under the blanket with a box of Kleenex and soup). We give the attorney general and the White House points for chutzpah and take the Gonzo-Meter down to 85.<br /><br />We wonder, though, if his continued presence hasn't become an exercise in humiliation for Republicans in Congress. How many Republican senators and House members have to say they've lost confidence in the attorney general before the White House gives them the time of day? <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003073.php">Talking Points Memo counted</a> six senators and four representatives dissing Gonzales by Friday. It's not a list of mavericks, but rather includes administration stalwarts like Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla. <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/20/200843.shtml">There's also this addition</a> to the list: Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., chair of the House Republican conference and No. 3 in the party's leadership. Sunday on Fox, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., went so far as to say that Gonzales' continuing presence &quot;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/washington/23gonzales.html?_r=2&amp;ref=washington&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin">is bad for the Department of Justice</a>.&quot; And on ABC's <em> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=3067229">This Week</a></em>, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized Bush for letting loyalty cloud his view of Gonzales.<br /><br />Before Gonzales testified, President Bush and White House spokespeople said that it was up to him to prove himself to Congress. Now that he has clearly &quot;lost the Hill,&quot; <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18246425/site/newsweek/">as <em>Newsweek</em> put it</a>, Bush has this to say today: &quot;The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.&quot; <em>Increased</em> no less.<br /><br />Why the stubbornly alternative version of reality? We like <em>Newsweek</em>'s explanation that Bush thinks &quot;a Gonzales resignation would embolden the Dems to go after other targets—like Karl Rove.&quot; So now the choice for Bush is this: Find a way to let your ruined man say his goodbyes or let him stand as a monument to the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164751/">irrelevance of the opinions of Republican members of Congress</a>.</p>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:57:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_4.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-23T15:57:00ZAl lives to see another week.News and PoliticsGonzales lives to see another week.2164827Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2164827falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_5.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong>&nbsp;95 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164276/">92 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Oh, boy. Alberto Gonzales did not have a good day in front of the Senate judiciary committee. It started badly, with ranking Republican Arlen Specter dressing him down within minutes, and it didn't get much better. For almost five hours, we kept waiting for some trainer in the corner to throw in the white towel or a White House aide to come forward to explain we were watching an elaborate skit connected with the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041900027.html">White House Correspondents' Association Dinner</a>.</p>
<p> <a>Gonzales</a> only answered some of the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164307/nav/tap1">key questions</a> about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, and those questions he did answer he answered badly. He did little to dispel the impression that some of the firings were politically motivated. Significantly, to explain the dismissal of former New Mexico prosecutor David Iglesias, who says he was fired because he did not indict Democrats on public corruption charges before the 2006 election, Gonzales offered only vague assertions about Iglesias' lack of aggressiveness. <a href="http://www.slate.com#a">*</a> Judging from the reactions of senators in both parties, he raised more questions than he answered about his competency, candor, and judgment. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn called for his resignation, and Specter stopped just short of doing so. CNN reported that White House aides compared the testimony to the clubbing of a baby seal, but the president stood by his man. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the attorney general &quot;has the full confidence'' of President George W. Bush, which makes us think that to have only &quot;partial confidence,&quot; Gonzales would have to knock over a bank.</p>
<p>We are bumping the meter up to 95. It may take the attorney general a few days to recognize that he did not exactly pull off a rout. But if the president was indeed waiting for his boy to turn this thing around today, the president must have been sorely disappointed. If anything, Gonzales probably lost support today. And if he persuaded even a single soul of his great competence, we'll eat our meter.</p>
<p><p><em><strong> <a>*</a> Correction, April 23, 2007:</strong> This sentence originally referred to voter fraud charges that former U.S. attorney David Iglesias declined to bring before the 2006 election instead of&nbsp;public corruption charges. Click <a href="http://www.slate.com#b">here</a> to return to the corrected sentence.</em></p></p>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:20:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_5.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-19T23:20:00ZAl, you're not helping.News and PoliticsAl, you're not helping.2164653Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2164653falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_6.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong>&nbsp;92 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163958/">85 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Tuesday is the big day for Alberto Gonzales. He's testifying in front of the Senate judiciary committee. To prepare the ground, he's lowering expectations. In the <em>Washington Post</em> on Sunday, the embattled attorney general wrote an embarrassing <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401010.html">opinion column</a> filled with such flaccid spin that we can only guess that the idea was to make his live testimony seem dazzling by comparison. Either that, or whoever erased all of those White House e-mails is also submitting satirical op-eds. But no, Gonzales plans to offer a <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003018.php">version of the same as his opening statement</a> tomorrow, which means he may not have to resign. There may be nothing left of him. </p>
<p>Titled &quot;Nothing Improper,&quot; Gonzales' op-ed attempts to shift the central question regarding the U.S. attorney firings from whether the attorneys were fired for &quot;political reasons&quot; to whether they were fired for &quot;improper reasons.&quot; Only two of us are lawyers, but all of us are parents, and we recognize this as Gonzales playing the toddler who thinks he can't be seen because he's covering his eyes. Denying the U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons has become a nearly impossible position to defend. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041600422.html?hpid=topnews">Sixty-seven percent of the public</a> believes the firings were politically motivated in part because the Justice Department and the administration have been serially incapable of presenting plausible, substantive reasons for the firings, or are explaining away the signs that political considerations were involved. </p>
<p>Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican member of the judiciary committee, called Gonzales on his sad letter Sunday on <em>This Week With George Stephanopoulos</em>: &quot;When he has a full column in the<em> Washington Post</em>, I think he would have been better advised if he would have dealt with some facts.&quot; Ouch. </p>
<p>The best that may be said for Gonzales is at least <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/washington/16bank.html">he didn't try to get his girlfriend a government job</a>,&nbsp;&agrave; la Paul Wolfowitz. However the attorney general elects to defend himself against his <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162774/">prior false statements</a> and the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162972/">contradictions raised by his former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson</a>, or to explain the role of the White House in the firings, he still has a &quot;steep hill to climb,&quot; as Specter put it, to prove that he's in any way competent to lead DoJ. If his actions weren't &quot;improper,&quot; they were clueless or confused, a point that comes across in his op-ed—like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr&Atilde;&para;dinger's_cat">Schr&ouml;dinger's cat</a>, he presents himself as simultaneously in charge and not in charge at all: &quot;My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm,&quot; nestled in next to, &quot;to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.&quot;</p>
<p>In other bad news for Gonzales, the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117669110085370913-T9dYIEPf_awlD0nf_bIaj4RGE20_20080415.html">reports</a> (subscription required) that his deputy Paul McNulty may be on his way out. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1610738,00.html"><em>Time</em> reports</a> that a group of conservatives, including a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, has written a letter to the president saying Gonzales should be fired, reminding us yet again that unlike previous political fights, the Gonzales one has open opposition from conservatives like Newt Gingrich, Sen. John Sununu, and the editors of the <em>National Review</em>—and a lot of silence with no real public defenders. Gonzales says he's looking forward to testifying. Add that to the list of things he can help explain to us tomorrow.</p>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:43:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_6.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-16T18:43:00ZD-Day Minus&nbsp;1News and PoliticsD-Day Minus&nbsp;12164276Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2164276falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_7.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong> 85 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163958/">85 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Even if the congressional investigation of the U.S. attorney firings yields no more evidence that the dismissals were nefarious, it will have been more than worthwhile for the window that's been opened into the internal workings of the Bush administration. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/washington/13emails.html?_r=1&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin">latest revelation</a>, of course, is that top White House aides, including Karl Rove, used e-mail accounts set up by the Republican National Committee—and that some of the messages they sent—<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-1.html">as many as five million</a>—are missing, including e-mails that relate to the U.S. attorney firings. </p>
<p>This looks fishy when viewed in the bright light of the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which requires record-keeping as opposed to record-hiding-and-losing, and the 1939 Hatch Act, which limits the partisan political activity of government officials. &quot;It's a mistake we are trying to fix,&quot; says a senior administration official. &quot;I know the conspiracy theories will be running wild.&quot;</p>
<p>You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to get conspiratorial about these e-mails, though. None other than disgraced superlobbyist Jack Abramoff explains why. In 2003, he accidentally wrote an indiscreet e-mail to Rove aide Susan Ralston (Abramoff's former assistant) on her White House e-mail account. After a White House official alerted his office that doing so would limit the political help he could get, Abramoff <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/03/white_house_emails.html">fired off this message</a>: &quot;Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her rnc pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system.&quot; That makes it seem pretty clear that at least in some cases, RNC e-mail accounts were used to stay outside the spirit, at least, of the law.</p>
<p>The White House says it is looking for the missing RNC account e-mails but will turn them over to Congress only as part of a &quot;package of accommodations&quot; that would include no public, on-the-record testimony from Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. In other words, another salvo in the running battle over executive privilege.</p>
<p>What does all this mean for Gonzales as he gears up for his appearance before Congress on Tuesday? It might help, because the more the DoJ scandal turns into a fight over presidential prerogatives, the more the White House is likely to dig in. Plus, it'll distract people from all of Gonzales' failings. <a>We're</a> holding the Gonzo-Meter steady at 85. On the other hand, we're being treated to an odd spectacle: Gonzales, around whom the scandal is swirling, is also the public official to whom House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform Chairman Henry Waxman <a href="http://www.slate.com#correct">*</a>, D-Calif., wrote yesterday about his concerns over Rove and the RNC e-mails. Which points to how strange Gonzales' role has become as he clings to office.</p>
<p>What can Gonzales say to redeem himself next week in his Senate appearance? If you could script his testimony, what would you advise? Send your advice for Al to <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>.</p>
<p> <a><em><strong>Correction</strong></em></a><em><strong>, April 16, 2007:</strong>The article originally misstated that Rep. Waxman was chairman of the House judiciary committee. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#return">Return</a> to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:17:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_7.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-13T19:17:00ZWhat do the missing RNC e-mails mean for Al?News and PoliticsWhat do the missing RNC e-mails mean for Gonzales?2164059Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2164059falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_8.html
<p><strong>Today's chance of a Gonzales departure:</strong> 85 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163871/">88 percent</a>)</p>
<p>In the real world, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-ex-poll10apr10,0,1816941.story?coll=la-home-nation">when the polls show</a> that 53 percent of the country believes the U.S. attorney general should resign, the Gonzo-meter would shoot up to reflect that fact. But in the Bizarro World of the Bush administration, a poll indicating a significant lack of national confidence in the AG is pretty much a guarantee the guy will be sticking around.</p>
<p>We drop the meter to 85 percent today, on the theory that the more America hates Gonzales, the better his chances become.</p>
<p>The new poll brings even more bad news for the president. Apparently a full 74 percent of the country believes that Bush's aides, including Karl Rove, should testify under oath. And meanwhile, Senate Democrats are <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=589836">broadening the scope of their inquiry</a>, asking very pointed questions about the U.S. attorney from Milwaukee—possibly a very &quot;loyal Bushie&quot;—who got the state purchasing supervisor an 18 month visit to jail (reversed last week by an irate appeals court).&nbsp; Justice Department staff can't seem to respond to the subpoenas fast enough these days.</p>
<p>But some of our readers suggest that instead of focusing on why the AG should leave, the Gonzo-meter should consider why he will stay. Notes reader Mark Votruba, &quot;There is no political gain to Bush in jettisoning Gonzales.&nbsp;If anything, it hurts him by damaging the storyline that's been sold to his true believers (Bush is a strong leader, unaffected by popular opinion; this &quot;controversy,&quot; like all the others, was manufactured by the liberal media).&quot; Votruba wants the meter knocked down to 60 percent. (Our view: True believers don't much like Gonzales and his self-inflicted wounds. That's why the <em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162843/">National Review Online</a></em> and Newt want him gone.) </p>
<p>In a similar vein, reader Kevin Coburn observes, &quot;Gonzalez and Bush are joined at the hip. Bush owes his political career to Gonzo, and Gonzo would be nowhere without his patron. For all his patina of toughness, Bush shows a remarkable reticence to fire anybody, whether it's because he's afraid the original appointment would be construed as a mistake (emperors do not make errors after all), because he values personal loyalty over competence, or because he's secretly intimidated by the people he surrounds himself with. And why shouldn't he be?&quot; (Our view is that there is much sense in this view, though the Gonzo/Bush bond is very strong not so much because Bush won't fire people (Rummy) but because that bond goes back to Texas and Bush is emotional about Gonzales' rags-to-riches story.)</p>
<p>Reader Doug Pickrell adds, &quot;If Bush and Cheney were to fire Gonzales, they would lose control over one of the insiders who would be aware of their complicity in formulating illegal rules of interrogation. Gonzales might or might not volunteer to speak out. In either event Gonzales would not be able to invoke executive privilege, if and when the Congress ever gets around to investigating the chain of command which led to these abuses.&quot; (Maybe. But our view is that it's hard to imagine Bush's most loyal foot soldier turning on him. Ever.)</p>
<p>Still, Pickrell speaks for a lot of us, of whatever political persuasion, when he concludes, &quot;Gonzales has them by the balls.&quot; Somehow, in Bizarro World, that's a good thing.</p>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:55:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_8.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-11T17:55:00ZFor whom the bell polls.News and PoliticsFor whom the bell polls.2163958Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2163958falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_9.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong>&nbsp;88 percent<br />(Previously:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163792/">86 percent</a>)</p>
<p>For the last day or so, Al Gonzales must have been thankful for Don Imus. The radio host was filling the news slot for <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ODST4G0&amp;show_article=1">doomed public figures desperately clinging to their glorious jobs</a>. But now the House judiciary committee <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/DOJ-subpoena/">has subpoenaed</a> Gonzales for documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys, and he's back in pole position. </p>
<p>The Justice Department has been reluctant to release the information—including redacted portions of previously released e-mails and documents and a ranking of all 93 prosecutors—saying that the material contained sensitive personal information about the attorneys named and had no bearing on the firings. Whether or not there's anything juicy in the disputed materials, a fight over whether the Justice Department officials still hanging around (remember: Three have resigned) are telling the truth in this case serves only to remind everyone of the many previous instances in this saga when officials, including the endangered Al, were not.</p>
<p>It's about time the House got in on the action. So far, the Senate has been having all the fun in the U.S. attorney scandal—goading Justice Department employees into testifying falsely, pointing fingers at their bosses, and taking the Fifth. For the last several days, all we've heard about has been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/gonzales-getting-there-on-senate.html">how hard Gonzales has been working</a> to prepare to face the senators. Now, House Democrats get their turn in the spotlight. </p>
<p>We're nosing the Gonzo-meter up to 88 percent today. If Gonzales is really as ill-prepared to testify as we've been hearing, all those new subpoenaed documents can only&nbsp;confuse him further. </p>
<p>Comments? Tips? E-mail us at&nbsp; <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>.</p>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:14:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_9.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-10T19:14:00ZYou've got mail.News and PoliticsSpecial delivery for Mr.&nbsp;Gonzales.2163871Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2163871falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_10.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 86 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163584">83 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Newt Gingrich thinks Alberto Gonzales should resign. &quot;I cannot imagine how he is going to be effective for the rest of this administration,&quot; <a href="http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/gingrich-suggests-gonzales-should-resign/20070408123009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001">he said over the weekend</a>. You'd think that, having called Spanish the &quot;language of living in the ghetto,&quot; Gingrich might be sufficiently worried about the Hispanic vote to have the attorney general's back. Instead, he's jumped onto the short but growing list of Republicans who have come out against Gonzales and Bush. Not a good sign. Nor is the sudden resignation on Friday of former Gonzales aide <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163601/nav/tap2">Monica &quot;I take the Fifth&quot; Goodling</a>. We move the meter back up to 86.</p>
<p>We also don't like Gonzales' chances because having reconfigured his entire schedule to attend his prep sessions, he now looks to be screwing them up. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17995971/site/newsweek/">According to <em>Newsweek</em></a>, his aides aren't letting him go on TV because at internal questioning sessions, he contradicts himself and gets mixed up about the timeline of events leading up to the U.S. attorney dismissals. To boot, because of DoJ's internal ethics investigation into the matter, Gonzales can't talk to his deputy, Paul McNulty, about who did what when. So he's holed up by himself, with nary a public event scheduled, spending hours going over documents. Newt is right: This isn't the way to honcho national law enforcement.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Pandora's box of the DoJ scandal seems to have no bottom. The department at first said that former New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias was fired in part for &quot;absentee landlordism&quot; because he had to travel to fulfill his commitments as a reserve officer in the military. But it's illegal to discriminate on the job against members of the military, so now a federal agency is investigating.</p>
<p>Before their dismissals, Iglesias and fired Washington State prosecutor John McKay refused to indict Democrats on what they viewed as unsupportable corruption charges. In Wisconsin, U.S. attorney Steve Bikuspic may have been more accommodating. Before the 2004 election, he went after state employee Georgia Thompson for awarding a contract to a contributor to the campaign of her boss, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. Thompson was sent to jail. Republicans cried corruption and made great hay with the Thompson charges in campaign advertising. Doyle won anyway. When Thompson appealed her conviction, judges on the Seventh Circuit last week sprung her from prison, immediately after oral argument and even before issuing a ruling. One of the judges on the panel accused the government of relying on evidence that was &quot;beyond thin.&quot; Is this really the grist the Bush administration wants to give <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09mon1.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">liberal editorial pages</a>?</p>
<p>And in other bad news for the Justice Department, it appears that three of the top deputies in Minnesota were less than delighted with their new boss, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07attorneys.html?_r=1&amp;em&amp;ex=1176091200&amp;en=8e951fc27af67a3f&amp;ei=5087%0A&amp;oref=slogin">Rachel Paulose</a>. They stepped down on Friday, allegedly over differences with the new U.S. attorney, who is (a) 34, (b) a former aide to Paul McNulty, and (c) was given an interim U.S. attorney gig last year.</p>
<p>Somehow, none of this damage seems to be enough to push Gonzales out before he testifies to Congress on April 17. If he's smart, he'll use his day to make a fuller apology. But then what—how do you inspire confidence about such an utterly un-confidence-inspiring series of events? </p>Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:04:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_10.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-09T18:04:00ZNewt comes out against Al, and more bad news for the attorney general.News and PoliticsNewt Gingrich comes out against Gonzales.2163792Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2163792falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_11.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 83 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162979/">83 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Train A leaves the station moving at 120 miles per hour. It's full of pundits, congressmen, and Washington insiders, all of whom believe that Alberto Gonzales <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&amp;pid=181329">needs to resign</a>. </p>
<p>Train B leaves another station, also at 120 miles per hour. Its sole occupant? Alberto Gonzales, perhaps petting a wallet-sized photograph of his friend President Bush. Gonzales is more convinced than ever that he should stay on in his job. So, he's pretty much quit that day job in order to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402614_pf.html">prepare for his upcoming Senate testimony</a>. Refusing to back down, even when nobody has his back, Gonzales soldiers on. He has now spent vastly more time—indeed, pored over hundreds more pages of documents—in saving his own title in the wake of the U.S. attorney firings than he ever did on evaluating which of them should be fired. </p>
<p>So, what's a Gonzo-meter to do? Track the progress of Gonzales' onrushing opponents? Or measure his own, credulity-stretching determination to face them down? Unable to name a winner, we set today's meter at 83 percent again, to reflect the almost poetic equilibrium between the growing numbers of people who hate Alberto Gonzales and his growing confidence that he can change their minds in Senate testimony.</p>
<p>The other attorney-gate news hardly improves his prospects of doing that. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951419/site/newsweek/"><em>Newsweek</em> confirms</a> that ousted New Mexico prosecutor David &quot;Tom Cruise&quot; Iglesias, sacked for his alleged absentee landlording, was, in fact, only away from his job in order to perform his duties as a captain in the Navy Reserve, a nonfiring offense. Former Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo is only the most recent to withdraw support, telling <em> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-04-bush-team_N.htm?csp=34">USA Today</a></em> that Gonzales' &quot;loyalty to George Bush has got to trump George Bush's loyalty to Alberto Gonzales,&quot; and that misplaced Texas loyalty &quot;is the only reason Gonzales is still around.&quot;</p>
<p>Meanwhile, former adviser Monica Goodling has dug in deeper in her refusal to testify. A new round of congressional nasty-grams between <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/Goodling-Houseletter/">Goodling's lawyer</a> and House judiciary committee Chairman <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002945.php">John Conyers</a> has only added to the questions surrounding Goodling's fascinating decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying. </p>
<p>Between all the miscommunication and finger-pointing from Goodling, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, Alberto Gonzales, and his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson, someone is sure to lose an eye.</p>
<p>Quick question for our readers: If Gonzales is devoting his every waking moment to preparing for this showdown with the senators, should the senators spend a bit of time prepping, too? Any thoughts or ideas for plausible questions they should be asking? Lines of inquiry they should be following? Investigations they should be undertaking? Drop us a line at <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>. </p>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:39:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_11.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-05T16:39:00ZWhen immovable objects collide.News and PoliticsWhen immovable objects collide.2163584Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2163584falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_12.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 83 percent<br />(Yesterday's chance:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163227/">86.5 percent</a>)</p>
<p>One way to wait out a blizzard of bad publicity: Hope that the world changes the subject. Alberto Gonzales may have the Supreme Court to thank for finally pushing him and his fired U.S. attorneys off the front pages after several weeks of relentless bad news. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court's decisions yesterday, involving <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html">global warming</a> and trials for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay (or the lack thereof), have given the AG at least a momentary reprieve. These stories also serve to remind Congress that while it's important to fully investigate the details of the U.S. attorney purge, there's a lot of other urgent oversight needed, over environmental regulation and those so-called trials down at Guantanamo.</p>
<p>We at the Death Watch remain puzzled by the AG's tenacity. His testimony later this month—even if it jibes with his most recent interviews—can at best amount to an admission that he is one of the worst and most clueless managers in the history of government. Short of capturing and trying Osama Bin Laden on April 16, there isn't much Gonzales could do in the coming weeks to restore his reputation. That hasn't stopped him <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors">from skipping a family vacation</a> in order to practice for his close-up. </p>
<p>Maybe the three of us go to the wrong parties, but a lot of folks keep asking us to explain what keeps the AG hanging on, long after it's become clear what a liability he is for this administration. One possibility is that he's just delusional. Another is that he has come to view the situation as a referendum on his honesty and integrity (as opposed to political effectiveness), and that this precludes him from backing down. Or maybe he truly believes it's OK to heap the blame on his subordinates and live to see another day.</p>
<p>Other theories? Give us a holler at <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>.</p>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:47:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_12.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-03T18:47:00ZThe Supreme Court changes the subject.News and PoliticsThe Supreme Court changes the subject.2163411Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2163411falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_13.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 86.5 percent<br />(Yesterday's chance: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162979">86.5 percent</a>)</p>
<p>The talk shows were not kind to Alberto Gonzales on Sunday. On Fox, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ducked when asked if he continues to support the attorney general. &quot;I can honestly say the president does,&quot; said McConnell, R-Ky. The best he could do was to back giving Gonzales a chance to testify before the Senate. We're holding the Gonzo-Meter steady and high at 86.5. </p>
<p>That's not in dispute; the attorney general's appearance is scheduled for April 17. But his bid to testify sooner—as the White House called for this weekend in Dan Barlett's appearance on ABC—is going nowhere, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Senate judiciary committee. The Democrats in Congress are busy &quot;interrogating&quot; several other Department of Justice officials, Leahy explained on NBC. Those interviews are taking place privately. But the deal that Congress struck with DoJ includes transcripts. So, the Democrats can tunnel into all the misstatements and inconsistencies that have come out of Justice during the last several weeks, pore over the transcripts, and then line up quotes to trip up Gonzales when he shows up in two weeks. He'll have to do some sharp and smooth talking, which hasn't exactly been his strength till now.</p>
<p>You would think the Bush administration would want to put its attorney general and itself out of this misery. You'd think they want to stanch the flow of stories <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101158.html">like this one</a> on Sunday in the <em>Washington Post</em>. Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen report that of four dozen U.S. attorney slots that have opened up because of attrition and dismissals since the 2004 election, one-third have gone to &quot;trusted administration insiders,&quot; including &quot;10 senior aides&quot; to Gonzales. Some of the appointees have no experience as prosecutors or connection to the region they were sent to. </p>
<p>This is not the way U.S. attorneys have been chosen in previous administrations. And those administrations would have been embarrassed by such stories. But apparently not this one. The Bush administration truly seems to think it's special.</p>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:26:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/04/gonzometer_13.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-04-02T19:26:00ZAl wants to hurry up and testify.News and PoliticsAlberto Gonzales wants to testify.2163227Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2163227falsefalsefalseThe Gonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/the_gonzometer.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 86.5 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162978">85 percent</a>)</p>
<p>In the wake of <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162972">the Kyle Attack</a>, even President Bush's cheerful enthusiasm for his attorney general may be waning. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17868754/">MSNBC reports</a> that when Republicans in Congress asked Bush about Alberto Gonzales yesterday, &quot;Bush did not defend his longtime friend.&quot; Instead, the president told them what he has said in public: Gonzales needs to go to Capitol Hill to face the mistrust he has sown there. </p>
<p>The White House was also publicly terse during Sampson's testimony. &quot;I'm going to have to let the attorney general speak for himself,&quot; White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. No more of last week's &quot;Al, Al, he's our man, if he can't do it, no one can.&quot; This sounds a lot more like, &quot;Al, Al, walk the plank.&quot;</p>
<p>The Justice Department didn't do much better in its efforts to clear up discrepancies between Gonzales' March 13 press conference assertions (when he said he was not involved in &quot;any discussions&quot; of the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys dismissed last year) and Sampson's descriptions yesterday of repeatedly briefing the attorney general. What Gonzales really meant, as he said in an interview earlier this week, was that he &quot;was never focused on specific concerns about United States attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign.&quot; </p>
<p>The DoJ explanation continues: &quot;Rather, as the Attorney General has already explained, his discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process.&quot; Oh, and also, &quot;he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. Attorneys.&quot; The last part matches what Sampson said. It all increasingly adds up to this: I said I had no idea what was going on, and he said I had no idea what was going on. And he was right. Not exactly a resounding reassurance, or display of bristling competence.</p>
<p>Gonzales is scheduled to testify on the Hill on April 17, after Congress comes back from the Easter recess. If he resigns before then, he might spare himself, or at least give his interrogators reason to go easier on him. If he doesn't, he's going to face three tough weeks of disclosures, staff backbiting, and late-night jokes. Plus, there's no way much work is getting done over at DoJ, with Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, doing damage control 24/7. Given the department's track record during this administration, that might not be so bad. But eventually the government has to function again. Al, we're sorry, but when even the president won't say you're doing a &quot;helluva job,&quot; it's time to bring in the grown-ups.</p>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:36:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/the_gonzometer.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-30T18:36:00ZEven the president is backing away from Gonzales?News and PoliticsIs Bush backing away from Gonzales?2162979Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162979falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 85 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162843">82.5435 percent</a>)</p>
<p>You want to hand it to Karl Rove. He sure is a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxcuVlCuX9Y">good dancer</a>. But can it really be a good thing for him to have—out there in the ether—e-mails from New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici's chief of staff that <em> <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17837826/site/newsweek/">thank him</a></em> after he floated a list of replacements for the newly ousted New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias? Certainly it's possible that Domenici's people were thanking Rove for the nice bike they sent over. Or the fabulous dinner party. But it does make you wonder.</p>
<p>While Rove boogied, Gonzales <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29gonzales.html?ei=5124&amp;en=a8b247a0c5939296&amp;ex=1332820800&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink&amp;pagewanted=all">took noogies</a>. Gonzales met in Chicago with some of the U.S. attorneys who didn't get canned and had what we call in Washington a &quot;frank and open exchange.&quot; With our children we call it &quot;a spanking.&quot; The attorneys complained about the way the Justice Department was run, said the firings had undermined morale, and expressed a lack of confidence in Gonzales. Today's Gonzo-Meter is set at 85.</p>
<p>Meantime, up on Capitol Hill, Kyle Sampson is doing his best impression today of a guy willing to take a bullet for his former boss, as long as it nicks his leg rather than tunnels into his gut. Among Sampson's revelations this morning, he told the senators that his former boss is basically a liar: &quot;I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate,&quot; he said. Gonzales is also the guy to blame: &quot;The decision-makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president.&quot;</p>
<p>Sampson's still doing a decent job of sticking to the talking points. &quot;Pleasure of the president ... no distinction between political and performance ... my fault ... &quot; And of course, all the terrible timing (Carol Lam's firing the day after she broadened an investigation into corruption by Republicans, Iglesias' addition to the list at the 11<sup>th</sup> hour) looks bad to Sampson only in hindsight, and even then, not suspect.</p>
<p>More to come as the day progresses. But it's hard to see how testimony from his former chief of staff—however nicely put—that calls Gonzales a liar who made the ultimate decisions can really help the guy.</p>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:42:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-29T20:42:00ZA wink and a Kyle.News and PoliticsA wink and a Kyle.2162978Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162978falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_2.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 82.5435 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162774">80 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Folks tend to describe the erosion of support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales with the phrase &quot;drip, drip, drip.&quot; That's wrong. It's increasingly more like &quot;flush, flush, flush.&quot;</p>
<p>It's hard to count how many former Gonzales supporters are fleeing, since he doesn't seem to have had all that many in the first place. But the few remaining fans are getting wobblier. We've bumped the Gonzo-Meter up to 82.5435.</p>
<p>So, who's peeling off today? The editors at the <em>National Review Online</em>. In an editorial titled &quot; <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNjY2U3Yjk0NTRmNTcyNjg1M2EwM2FlNTA0OTYyMzU=">Time to Go</a>,&quot; they politely suggest that even though &quot;the story of the eight fired U.S. attorneys has been relentlessly overhyped,&quot; Gonzales must resign. They helped him fend off prior attacks, they point out, but fear they &quot;have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability.&quot; And whether inadvertent or extremely clever, their conclusion—&quot;The Justice Department needs a fresh start&quot;—echoes the language of the Rove/Miers/Sampson e-mails about the need for new blood and fresh starts in the U.S. attorneys' offices.</p>
<p>It's hard to see how Kyle Sampson is going to avoid joining the Gonzales deserters when he testifies before the Senate judiciary &nbsp;committee tomorrow. On the one hand, everyone agrees that he is fiercely loyal to his former boss, Gonzales. On the other hand, Gonzales has been <a href="http://www.slate.com2162775?nav=tap3">pointing the finger squarely at him</a> as the culprit. How can Sampson possibly reconcile <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&amp;STORY=/www/story/03-13-2007/0004545543&amp;EDATE=TUE+Mar+13+2007,+05:46+PMhttp://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&amp;STORY=/www/story/03-13-2007/0004545543&amp;EDATE=TUE+Mar+1">Gonzales' claims</a> that he &quot;was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,&quot; with <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002789.php">his own statement</a> that &quot;The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject for several years was well-known&quot;?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the folks at <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002891.php">TPM Muckraker want to know</a> how Sampson will reconcile his <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002789.php">claim</a> that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty somehow missed the whole U.S. attorneys issue &quot;because no one focused on it or deemed it important at the time,&quot; with McNulty's complaint ( <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/page/2/">via Chuck Schumer</a>) that &quot;I was not told that these things were happening by the people who were supposed to brief me.&quot;</p>
<p>Don't get us wrong. Sampson's a good lawyer, and he plans to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/28/fired.attorneys.ap/">avoid making his boss look bad</a>. But he's also <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702423_pf.html">an ambitious guy</a> who just can't want to be left holding the bag. </p>
<p>Yet more bad news for Gonzales: <em>U.S. News</em> reports that several White House aides &quot;stopped using the White House&quot; e-mail system when they <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/070327/email_controversy_prompts_many.htm?s_cid=rss:site1">found out their e-mails could be subpoenaed</a>. Some of those aides sent e-mail from the Republican National Committee—and among those missives are some of the most incriminating e-mails that have been released. Since the RNC is a political organization, this all makes the firings seem more, rather than less, political. <em>What! Gambling in Casablanca?</em> And today's news adds fuel to the notion that everyone in the White House is scrambling to hide everything.</p>
<p>So, it looks like <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500912.html">Bob Novak was right</a> when he said that Gonzales stands alone. Oh wait, maybe Bush is still standing behind him—but that doesn't help him all that much, because it seems the president stands alone, too. So there you have it. Two lonely guys and a flushing sound. </p>
<p>Looking forward to tomorrow's Gonzo-Meter, the all-Kyle Sampson edition.</p>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:35:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_2.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-28T19:35:00ZAlberto Gonzales, like cheese, stands alone.News and PoliticsGonzo-Meter2162843Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162843falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_3.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong>&nbsp;80 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162666">75 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Last week, Gonzales' DoJ team showed cracks when fired aide Kyle Sampson agreed to testify before Congress. Now the team is breaking into many icebergs. And they're beginning to ram into each other. Loyalty is gone, and even if no one directly implicates Gonzales in wrongdoing, the cumulative chaos may sink him. We're moving the meter to 80.</p>
<p><strong>On iceberg No. 1:</strong> Monica Goodling, the White House liaison to the DoJ, now on extended leave, is taking the Fifth rather than testify before Congress. In his <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/?resultpage=1&amp;">letter to the Senate judiciary committee</a>, Goodling's lawyer alludes to the ultimate fall guy of the moment, Scooter Libby, and suggests that his client is at risk of self-incrimination because the &quot;hostile and questionable environment&quot; of the committee is &quot;legally perilous&quot; for her. The lawyer also says that a DoJ official (presumably Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) blames Goodling for failing to &quot;inform him of certain pertinent facts&quot; before he testified to Congress last month. </p>
<p>The idea seems to be that Goodling, a 33-year-old graduate of Pat Robertson's <a href="http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/">Regent University School of Law</a>, could say something to Congress that's at odds with what McNulty or other DoJ-ers will say and thus expose herself to future charges if a future court doesn't believe her version. This is spin. You can't take the Fifth because of some hypothetical future risk of perjury or obstruction of justice or making false statements to Congress or the crime of concealing information from Congress &quot;by any trick, scheme or device.&quot; (<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=false%20statements%20Congress&amp;url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html">Here's the statute</a>; Goodling's lawyer doesn't cite another basis for criminal liability, and we haven't turned up anything else in the day's research.) If you could take the Fifth for maybe-someday exposure, then a witness at a criminal trial who had nothing to do with the crime at issue could refuse to testify based entirely on her claim that a prosecutor might subsequently allege that her testimony was untruthful. You also can't take the Fifth because you think your questioners are hostile, points out Neil Kinkopf, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a Clinton-era DoJ official. </p>
<p><strong>On iceberg No. 2: </strong>Apparently the famously hapless Harriet Miers has her defenders. Someone with e-mails to leak <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2983066&amp;page=1">has turned on McNulty</a> and blamed him for igniting the whole scandal by calling the U.S. attorney firings performance-related. According to &quot;an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News,&quot; the former White House counsel told McNulty to stick to the line that the administration would not talk about personnel issues. Thus, it's all his fault for ignoring her advice and he's on his own to deal with the consequences. </p>
<p><strong>On iceberg No. 3:</strong> Kyle Sampson still plans to testify before the Senate judiciary committee on Thursday. What he will reportedly say is that Gonzales knew what was in the works with the firings beforehand—contrary to the AG's assertions that he was a hands-off CEO. Sampson has decided to &quot;trust the Congress and the process,&quot; his lawyer says. Good idea. They can't do him worse than his former bosses.</p>
<p><strong>On iceberg No. 4:</strong> Paul McNulty, undoubtedly hurling curses at Goodling, Miers, Sampson, and anyone else he has ever worked with.</p>
<p>My, my. We are reminded of that&nbsp;apocryphal story&nbsp;of the four college students who party all weekend on a road trip and then tell their chemistry professor they&nbsp;couldn't take&nbsp;the test that Monday because their car got a flat tire on the way back, preventing them from studying. The professor puts them all in a room and gives them a test that consists of a single question: which tire? </p>
<p>Sampson, Goodling, Miers, and McNulty are each naming a different tire today. And the test is all very public.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, <strong>on iceberg No. 5</strong>, Gonzales <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801927/">tried desperately to stay afloat last night in an interview with Pete Williams on NBC</a>. &quot;What I'm saying is, during the process there may have been other conversations about, specifically about, the performance of US attorneys,&quot; Gonzales said. &quot;But I wasn't involved in the deliberations as to whether or not a particular United States attorney should or should not be asked to resign.&quot; This kind of almost incomprehensible parsing and hedging is a good sign, if any more are needed, that pretty soon Gonzales will have to surrender himself to the deep.</p>
<p><em>Any tips or thoughts? E-mail us at </em> <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com"><em>slatepolitics@gmail.com</em></a><em>.&nbsp;(E-mail may be quoted by name unless otherwise stipulated.)</em></p>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:02:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_3.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-27T19:02:00ZAl's team is breaking up, and he's sinking.News and PoliticsMore trouble for Alberto Gonzales.2162774Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162774falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_4.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong>&nbsp;75 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162556">50 percent</a>)</p>
<p>This was a bad weekend for Al Gonzales. Several pieces of really bad news push the meter to 75 today. At the end of last week, the attorney general looked like he just might stay in his job. But now he's back at the center of Washington's political firestorm over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. The worst of it, courtesy of a Friday-night document dump: Gonzales was more involved in these dismissals than he has suggested. On March 13, he said that he ''was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,'' but now it turns out he attended a meeting about the plan and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Fired-Prosecutors.html?_r=3&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin">signed off on it</a>. Either he was more involved in this matter than he has admitted, or he is not paying attention at meetings. He now faces a broader question, too: whether he knowingly allowed the Justice Department to become a White House political tool or did nothing while it <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys25mar25,0,4756977,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines">drifted in that direction</a>.</p>
<p>These new disclosures about Gonzales' spotty memory caused Republican <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/washington/26attorneys.html?ex=1332561600&amp;en=78818ab3bb41b539&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">Sens. Chuck Hagel, Lindsay Graham, and Arlen Specter</a> to sharply challenge his honesty on the weekend talk shows. And while the list of those calling for his ouster increases, there aren't any members of the GOP rushing to praise him and plead for him to keep doing the&nbsp;crackerjack job he's been doing so far. </p>
<p>And the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301396.html"><em>Washington Post</em> observes</a> yet another creature scurrying away from the sinking ship. Monica Goodling, a Gonzales senior counselor who'd worked closely with Kyle Sampson on the U.S. attorney firings, took an &quot;indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday.&quot;</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the fired U.S. attorneys are continuing their own media tour, explaining how their <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401122.html">firings were politically motivated</a> and parceling out new details about the political pressure they faced with almost with every news cycle. Former Washington state attorney John McKay <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10386260/">said yesterday</a> on <em>Meet the Press</em> that former White House counsel Harriet Miers asked him why Republican Party loyalists were angry with him. He took the question to be explicit political payback for not following through on a case that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a close gubernatorial race. </p>
<p>&nbsp;Gonzales has to be thinking about what his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, plans to say on Thursday, when he's scheduled to testify before Congress. The options appear to be limited to &quot;I was out of control&quot; or &quot;My boss is untruthful.&quot; Strategy question: Would it be better for the administration for Gonzales to resign early this week, in hopes of giving the Democrats a big fish so they don't go after a bigger one (Karl Rove), or to bow out on Friday as damage control after Sampson talks? <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_alone.html">Bob Novak reminds us</a> that President Bush won't fire his attorney general—it will be up to Gonzales to take himself out.</p>
<p><em>Any tips or thoughts? E-mail us at </em> <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com"><em>slatepolitics@gmail.com</em></a><em>.&nbsp;(E-mail may be quoted by name unless otherwise stipulated.)</em></p>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:10:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_4.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-26T16:10:00ZThe hot seat gets hotter.News and PoliticsLife is getting worse for Gonzales.2162666Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162666falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_5.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong>&nbsp;50 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162527">50 percent</a>)</p>
<p>Alberto Gonzales is acting like a man who wants to save himself. On Wednesday, he lunched with four Republican senators (Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jon Kyl of Arizona, John Cornyn of Texas, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama). On Thursday, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2973604&amp;page=1">he went to St. Louis</a> to meet with the region's U.S. attorneys, the first of a series of meeting to reassure the nation's remaining prosecutors. It's the Al Tour. Gonzo-palooza.</p>
<p>Will it draw screaming fans? No, but maybe it will distract them from the bad news for the AG today. Margaret Chiara, the fired U.S. attorney from Michigan, has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23chiara.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">started publicly challenging</a> the Justice Department's account of her firing, saying that she was pushed out to make way for another lawyer, not because she was a bad manager. There's nothing scandalous about Chiara's version—these <em>are</em> patronage appointments, after all—except that it makes the DoJ account look like a lie. Also, the blogs continue to train a spotlight on the 18-day &quot;gap&quot; (DoJ prefers &quot;lull&quot;) in the e-mail trail about the eight U.S. attorney firings. The Bush administration turned over only four e-mail chains between Nov. 15, 2006 and Dec. 4, 2006. The firings occurred on Dec. 7. </p>
<p>DoJ insists they've turned over everything they've got that's relevant. Which serves only to fuel speculation that &quot;the really interesting email traffic in this period would have been within the White House,&quot; <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002846.php">as Paul Kiel put it on TPM Muckraker</a>. </p>
<p>Then there's the potential congressional testimony of Kyle Sampson, the former Gonzales aide who resigned earlier this month over his role in the scandal. Senate judiciary committee Chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has invited Sampson to speak next week—on Thursday, to be precise. Will Sampson talk, and if he does, what will he say about the boss for whom he just took an enormous fall?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23gitmo.html?hp"><em>New York Times</em> gives us a new reason to care</a> about whether Gonzales stays or goes: Apparently, he's the one stopping the closure of Guantanamo Bay, a move Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice reportedly support. According to the <em>Times</em>, Gates wants to transfer the hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo to U.S. soil. Gonzales wants to leave them where they are. &quot;Let's see what happens to Gonzales,&quot; said an unnamed senior administration official who still hopes to see the base shut down. Yes, let's see. </p>
<p>Any tips or thoughts? Email us at <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>.&nbsp; (E-mail may be quoted by name unless otherwise stipulated.)</p>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:54:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_5.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-23T17:54:00ZHolding steady.News and PoliticsThe Gonzo-Meter holds steady.2162556Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162556falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_6.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong>&nbsp;50 percent<br />(Previously: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162376">45 percent</a>)</p>
<p>So, riddle us this: Does the growing &quot;constitutional crisis&quot; over <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200213.html">congressional subpoenas for Karl Rove and company</a> ultimately help Alberto Gonzales or hurt him? Hard to tell. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162376/">Yesterday we suggested</a> that as that story grows and takes first position in Washington's ongoing partisan spat, Gonzales and his role in the scandal decreases. As this fight becomes a fight about Karl Rove, Gonzales starts to look like a small fish that ought to be thrown back. On the other hand, every other front-page story today points to more misdeeds at the Justice Department—from the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/03/22/let_in_the_light/">national security letters</a> to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html">Tobacco-gate</a> (covered <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162375/fr/flyout">yesterday in Slate</a>) to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22gap.html?ex=1332216000&amp;en=bf2d7528ca65b8f7&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">Gap-gate</a>. How any of these things could actually improve Gonzales' prospects is mystifying. (And even if he didn't have anything to do with these problems, he should go for being such an absentee AG.)</p>
<p>And yet. Gonzales says he's staying &quot;<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/22/gonzales-staying-kids/">for the kids</a>.&quot; His spinners have managed to spin the calls for his ouster as a racially motivated hate crime. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys22mar22,0,169355.story?coll=la-home-headlines">According to the <em>L.A. Times</em></a>, &quot;His office released a dozen testimonials from Latinos and law enforcement groups, with many saying that Gonzales, the first Latino attorney general, was being unfairly held accountable for the fiasco.&quot;</p>
<p>And yet. His former aide <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/leahy-says-former-gonzales-aide-to-testify-voluntarily-2007-03-22.html">Kyle Sampson</a>, who already <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-usatty185134889mar18,0,102520.story?coll=ny-lipolitics-print">fought back</a> once against efforts by his former colleagues to characterize his role, appears to be capable of pulling down the palace walls around him. Sometimes the fall guy refuses to stay felled. This could be the end of Gonzales, if Sampson implicates him. Or it could help protect him if Sampson implicates someone else (Rove?).</p>
<p>Another question to stir up the mix: How loyal is Gonzales to Bush? So loyal that he will do what Bush says he wants and stay on and on and on? Or so loyal that he will do what's clearly in Bush's best interest—even if Bush doesn't know it yet—and go, a la Harriet Miers when she withdrew her own Supreme Court nomination? The latter seems more plausible; on the other hand, the dynamic isn't quite the same. An unnamed administration adviser tells us today that it &quot;would be tough for Bush to back down now, but Al may implode of his own weight. He has to quiet the hill himself.&quot; It's all on Gonzales now. Whatever that means.</p>
<p>We could go on and on. The takeaway is that we are at 50 percent today as we imagine are you. Except if you're Michael Chertoff, whom we've heard may be in the bullpen.</p>
<p>Thoughts, quibbles, scoops? E-mail us at <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>.</p>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:43:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_6.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-22T21:43:00ZIt's all up to Al.News and PoliticsIt's up to you, Al.2162527Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162527falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_7.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 45 percent<br />(Previously:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162289">55 percent</a>)</p>
<p>We know that the president's recent support for Alberto Gonzales doesn't preclude the attorney general from doing himself in. But we're feeling pretty good about the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162289/nav/tap2">call we made yesterday</a>, and today we think the attorney general's chances of sticking around are even better. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000111.html">Last night at his press conference</a>, Bush was resolute. &quot;He's got support with me,&quot; the president said. &quot;I support the attorney general.&quot; Sure, that could mean nothing as soon as it means nothing. But a former White House official tells us that Bush is really taken with Gonzales' story of rags to riches. So, in addition to all the other reasons the president would want his man to stay (like, he does what Bush wants, or makes what Bush wants legal), standing solidly by Gonzales also appeals to Bush's romantic and patrician side.</p>
<p>Also in Gonzales' favor: He's very quickly becoming last week's editorial. The pending showdown between Congress and the White House over the testimony of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers about the group firing of eight U.S. attorneys is eclipsing the question of whether the attorney general should take the fall for the scandal. Today the House judiciary committee <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FIRED_PROSECUTORS?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&amp;CTIME=2007-03-21-13-27-44">voted</a> to subpoena Rove and Miers. Tomorrow the corresponding Senate committee does the same. The Gonzales ship has sailed amid talk of &quot;constitutional crisis.&quot;</p>
<p>Democratic leaders yesterday pooh-poohed White House counsel Fred Fielding's offer of voluntary testimony by Rove and Miers. The Democrats don't want private—no oath and no transcript; they want public—under oath and on the record. And they're in a position to insist on that, or at least are game to try. Bush was resolute last night about this, too, saying he's &quot;absolutely&quot; prepared to go to court over the issue. Usually the executive and legislative branches resolve such confrontations between themselves. The incentives don't necessarily line up that way this time, though. We're talking about a White House that treasures its prerogatives mightily and a Democratic Congress eager to flex its new muscles.</p>
<p>So, we think it's increasingly up to Gonzales: Until something else breaks (or until we learn that he's broken something else), he may just get to stay.</p>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:32:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_7.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-21T18:32:00ZThe attorney general's prospects improve.News and PoliticsThe attorney general's prospects improve.2162376Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162376falsefalsefalseGonzo-Meterhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_8.html
<p><strong>Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure:</strong> 55 percent</p>
<p>We know. You think we're nuts. You think he's already packing. But we have some insider info from an unnamed administration source to tell you about. &quot;We are not throwing him overboard,&quot; we're told today, in no uncertain terms. </p>
<p>Plus there's the president's unequivocal <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002812.php">telephone call of support</a> to the AG this morning, and our failure so far to find anything pointy, sharp, or smoking in <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/">last night's document dump</a>. Instead, there's evidence to show that the Justice Department was worrying over aspects of former U.S. attorney of Southern California Carol Lam's record on immigration prosecutions—as opposed to her plans to charge more Republican officials in the wake of Rep. Randy &quot;Duke&quot; Cunningham's guilty plea. And there's <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt7-3070319.pdf">this e-mail</a>, about Gonzales being upset that some of the February Senate testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was &quot;inaccurate,&quot; which makes him seem more on the ball rather than less. We think all of this suggests that the AG may be sticking around for a while.</p>
<p><strong><em>Slate</em></strong> has a long and varied history of whatever-o-meters. The <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2078448/">Saddameter</a> tracked the chances of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. The <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/10858/">Clintometer</a> gauged the likelihood of a Clinton removal over the Lewinsky scandal; and most recently, the tragically inaccurate <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2128687/">Miers-o-Meter</a> measured the likelihood of Harriet Miers' confirmation to the Supreme Court. On <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2128897/">the day she stepped down</a>, we three posited that her chance of confirmation to the Supreme Court was 60 percent. (We might add, just for context, that administration officials were just as adamant about her sticking with it as we were that day.)</p>
<p>Undaunted—sort-of—we now bring you the Gonzo-Meter, in which we predict the likelihood that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will leave the Bush administration. We will rely, for our predictions, on the usual clutch of gossip and misinformation, the shifting odds at <a href="http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/">intrade</a>, and the direction of the wind. We also rely, as ever, on your insights and tips. Please send those along to <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless otherwise stipulated.)</p>
<p> <a>Today,</a> there is a 55&nbsp;percentage chance that Gonzales will depart. <a href="http://www.slate.com#correction">*</a> &nbsp;Had you asked us last night, when there was gossip about the White House <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/03/20/20usattorneys.html">actually naming AG replacements</a>, we'd have set it higher. Between that and Tony Snow's &quot;don't forget your three-hole-punch and your ficus&quot; vote of no-confidence yesterday—&quot;<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/03/20/2007-03-20_gonzos_a_goner-1.html">We hope he stays</a>&quot; (nice)—it looked like Gonzales wouldn't last. Also, to review, at least one Republican senator has called for him to step down, and one other has said he's lost confidence in him. Another GOP representative has asked for his resignation, and we stopped counting the editorial pages that did so last week.</p>
<p>But a senior administration official confirms this morning that Snow's tepid support yesterday was not a sign that the White House is writing Gonzales off. It was an effort to avoid the mistake they made in committing to keeping former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on for a fixed period. When asked if Gonzales was staying or going, our source said quickly: &quot;Staying.&quot; We believe that—for today. Let's also keep in mind, however, that sometimes a White House refusal to throw someone under the bus is the prelude to that person's decision to dive under it. </p>
<p>Thoughts, quibbles, scoops? E-mail us at <a href="mailto:slatepolitics@gmail.com">slatepolitics@gmail.com</a>.</p>
<p><em><strong> <a>Correction </a> March 21, 2007:</strong> The article originally and incorrectly described the &quot;odds&quot; of Gonzales' departure as 55 percent. The odds would be 55:45. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#return">Return</a> to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:56:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch/2007/03/gonzometer_8.htmlEmily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia Lithwick2007-03-20T18:56:00ZIs Alberto Gonzales going down?News and PoliticsHow long will Alberto Gonzales stick around?2162289Emily BazelonJohn DickersonDahlia LithwickDeathwatchhttp://www.slate.com/id/2162289falsefalsefalse